[chrismanfrank]

> You see that as a dystopia. I see that as a better political and social environment.

The question then is...should YOU be the one to decide what is "better"? Who should be given that kind of power?

In an ideal world, a benevolent philosopher king would have that power. In the real world, maybe it's best no one has it.

Maybe it's better to cast the ring into the fire.

[wyattpeak]

This sort of argument is the ultimate dead end. Shall we have no legislation on anything which isn't universally considered beneficial?

Besides which, choosing no legislation is a choice in itself. Having no law on speech isn't a middle-ground, it's an extreme. It's an understandable extreme, and though I disagree with it in limited fashion I don't think it's an unreasonable case to make. But it is nevertheless not the balanced middle-ground choice you're presenting it as.

[IncRnd]

This sort of argument is not a dead end but the very essence of government. Asking how much power should be given to a government is vitally important to the citizens and is certainly not a dead end.

[wyattpeak]

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that speech legislation should be debated. I'm disagreeing with the conclusion that, since there is no consensus, it's best that there is no legislation at all.

[chrismanfrank]

Well now you've raised a very deep point. We need some laws and regulation, but not too much. How do we decide? We have a Constitution and a political system, including judiciary where we can all fight it out.

Conservatives are more on the side of limited government power. Progressives think the government should do more. And on and on it goes...