[Duennepaper]

You might sound like someone who doesn't understand 'freedom of speech'.

This does not allow you to do whatever you want.

In germany for example it is written like this: "These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour."

And its not different in the USA, you have limitations as well as the general good is more important than your personal.

"The world is all too fond of sexuality, and especially with controversial sexuality." And what distrubs me the most on your comment: Just because their are pedophiles, doesn't make pedophiles okay. Yes i used here the extrem form of 'controversial sexuality' but to be clear: you should know your boundaries in comparison to the normal society. Just because you are part of that sub group of people, in my circles 'controversial sexuality' is not typical at all.

You have a responsibility and just because you can and some other are having the same moral compass as you have, doesn't make your niche okay on a moral/society point of view.

And it could be that your 'controversial sexuality' is actually okay but how you express yourself, it feels already that you crossed a line i wouldn't.

[devwastaken]

For something to be wrong you have to prove a harm. Limitations to speech are because the harm of that speech weighs more than the chilling effect of suppressing it.

Fictional stories and images on the internet have no relationship with reality. There are no victims, there is no one harmed. You don't have to like the content, that is fine, but there is no good argument about bad morals or government intervention unless you're proving actual harm.

[buisi]

I also have a dislike for punishing someone for the acts of someone else. If someone who commits a crime, just so happens to have a particular book, it doesn't mean all the owners of that particular book should be punished for their transgressions.

It's an unpleasant form of collective punishment. And it means that all of them have to suffer for something which has nothing to do with them.

[throwaway4115]

> [Freedom of speech] rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour.

You seem to imply that controversial written erotica shouldn’t be covered by freedom of speech protections, as it would be in the name of protecting children. Do you think censoring it would reduce the incidence of child abuse? If so, would banning videogames like GTA reduce the incidence of shootings or traffic rule violations?

> in my circles 'controversial sexuality' is not typical at all

It seems like the author of the comment you’re replying to might be in a unique position to gauge what controversial sexuality might be of interest to your circles even if yourself aren’t privy to it due to its controversial nature.