[argiopetech]

Those "who want to learn it from them" must make the assessment. Any less is censorship of the teacher, which, in my mind, is an unqualified evil.

This is not to say that the material learnt/shared is an unqualified good. The ability of each individual to freely exchange that knowledge and assess it in their context is.

[low_tech_love]

But then how would you separate, for example, teaching from preaching?

[gameman144]

I'd argue preaching is (or rather, ought to be) teaching, so no need to separate them.

Totally fine to restrict subjects that can be taught in schools though, including religion and the like.

[timcobb]

Isn’t that why we call them professors?

[tqi]

> Any less is censorship of the teacher, which, in my mind, is an unqualified evil.

I'm not sure if I agree. I understand the intent is that individuals should in turn be able reject those teachings in their context, but that feels disconnected from the reality of our society. Ultimately I think it comes down to whether you think policies should be made based on intent or outcomes. If, for example, WhatsApp knows that individuals "teaching" about the dangers posed by an ethnic minority, and that those teachings would result in genocide regardless of how much helper text / warning flags you place around the content, I think it would be a moral imperative for them to remove that content.

Of course, who gets to make that decision and how you measure outcomes (what is worse, and for whom?) is a whole can of worms, so I definitely have reservations, but ultimately I believe that a) some limits are necessary, b) there can be genuine disagreement on where that line should be drawn and c) there is no such thing as an unqualified evil or good.