• /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’m an advocate of VPN but this is not the situation to recommend them but to chastise regulators and lawmakers for even allowing this. This is eroding our freedom of speech. I can see politicians expanding this and censoring terrorist speech and speech of certain political ideologies. It is the erosion our civil liberties we need to worry about.

    • Donut@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I agree that it’s a slippery slope, but what does this have to do with freedom of speech?

      • yildolw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        9 months ago

        Smut is speech. Frankly, smut is the highest form of speech. You should not need to show your papers to speak or to listen

            • Donut@leminal.space
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              If you want to start talking to lawmakers about wanting to watch porn without having to show ID, you would be dismissed if you’re going to cite free speech being the right it is infringing upon. Privacy would be a better starting point, for example.

              • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                That’s your personal interpretation. I think you’re full of shite and so does Larry Flint.

              • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Big shame people are unaware of a century’s worth of obscenity law… how in western democracy the high courts literally found that laws like these violated free speech protections over “local prurient interests” and hence struck down those laws.