I think it's pretty clear from my first comment that I am a free speech absolutionist. So no I don't believe shutting off certain opinions even I find them abhorrent.

Like I said before. We appear to fundamentally disagree, so I don't really see any point in going down this road. You think I am a "free speech warrior shithead" already and I think your way of thinking is short sighted.

What about when that "abhorrent" opinion is just couching violence in innuendo and insinuation? Often facist rhetoric such as Neo-Nazis (in the most literal sense) have recognized that they'll often get defended up until they outright call for violence and have adapted tactics to continue sustained harrassment campaigns until they manage to inflict psychological harm that can accomplish the same goals of their physical harm.

[–] MoreFPSmorebetter@lemmy.zip -1 points 5 days ago

Unfortunately that is one of the downsides. People will abuse the rules and dance all along the line for nefarious reasons. Can't plug that hole without potentially stripping others of their ability to speak up in certain ways and situations.

I actually had a long conversation with friends about that yesterday. We were talking about how someone wasn't outright saying to kill anyone but they were playing propaganda videos of someone else that was saying those things. Do we hold them responsible for the words of the video they were playing on stream for everyone or is that a clear separation?

So we have the classic conundrum. Do we want a system where innocent people might accidentally go to prison or do we want a system where people who should go to prison sometimes don't because we would rather never put innocent people behind bars.