[Taek]

I do not like this example. Advocating to change the laws in favor pedophilia or child marriage is absolutely within the realm of what should be protected by free speech. We've made progress on topics like homosexuality because ideas that are sometimes highly offensive are allowed to be debated in public.

Certainly I'd agree that use of child pornography within a political campaign should be banned, or use of any material that was created by illegally harming other humans or animals, but that is different entirely from campaigning in favor of something highly controversial.

[osrec]

Should politicians campaigning on the basis "homosexuality is wrong" be allowed to do so, especially when using that line to enflame religious groups, with the sole purpose of securing votes?

And if in power, should they then be allowed to reintroduce the ridiculing and eventual persecution of homosexuals, on the initial grounds of free speech?

[pnako]

Should politicians campaigning on the basis "oil extraction is wrong" be allowed to do so, especially when using that line to enflame energy groups, with the sole purpose of securing votes?

And if in power, should they then be allowed to reintroduce high corporate tax rates, on the initial grounds of free speech?

[Taek]

As a campaign topic, yes I believe people should be able to advocate the persecution of homosexuals or the re-criminalization of marijuana.

These topics are important to the protection of free speech.

Censorship of ideas you don't like will create tension and unrest from the groups that are not allowed to express the ideas that they truly believe in.

[influx]

How about a more realistic example: a politician campaigning to abolish the electoral college? Thoughts?