[curlyQueue]

Interesting comparison. Dignifying with a simple example:

Child porn != Video promoting peace by President Trump

Child porn != Speaking freely about election fraud, and spreading information as such.

The difference is child porn is clearly illegal, while the other things are clearly not. Children are being hurt, which is illegal. These comparisons are stretches, just like your logic.

Hope you watch now! Stay open minded :-)

[nemothekid]

Ok, so you agree there are limits on my free speech right? You, yourself, just explained that there is some line in sand that must be drawn? After all again, by your own argument, I have no right to distribute child pornography. Clearly, you, yourself, don't fully believe that there is no argument for censorship, suspension or banning, based on our 1st amendment - you are not willing to defend me of my right to distribute child porn.

You must then agree, by the framing of your answer, that this is no longer a conversation about free speech and about whether or not Trump incited violence. It's clear that you understand that if it were Trump promoting violence, that my comparison wouldn't be such a stretch. So can we agree to not waste our time discussing the merits free speech?

Google and Apple are deplatforming Parler for inciting violence - and enforcing no moderation towards users that do so. If you want to argue that "inciting violence" is not "clearly illegal" then I'm willing to watch videos that support that case, but you should make it clear that is your position, and not a general one about "free speech".

[curlyQueue]

Man you deleted the part about the leftist straw man lol!!

You lost me honest to God, and I am going to leave this here... I still stand by my original statement, acknowledging my choice of words isn’t perfect but the main idea is there. And thanks for watching the videos, and for the short discourse. It’s been fun, God Bless!

[nemothekid]

>Man you deleted the part about the leftist straw man lol!!

I deleted it because I didn't want to muddy my argument - I had a feeling you would focus on my critique of the video and avoid addressing my actual argument (which you did). I stand my critique of the video being a strawman, but ultimately I think it is irrelevant to the argument I was making.

Unfortunately, whenever I make this argument free speech "absolutists" are unable to answer or resort to circular arguments. If you do still standby your original statement, I hope you will consider the implications of such a statement which imply you are also willing to defend child pornographers from censorship.

[curlyQueue]

Still really confused man...

The line I drew is based on the law regarding child pornography— the example you’ve chosen to make a point.

There is no point... because it’s illegal? While the other examples I gave aren’t illegal? It’s pretty simple, and you’re lengthy replies are stretching an illogical point :-/

Edit: You are claiming I’m an absolutist... I’m unaware of this term, because there’s no such thing— I live in a country where laws exist (see above)

Happy Sunday... hope it makes sense.