[tallanvor]

So, as an example, then, you would be ok with someone putting up billboards with your picture calling for you to be executed? I mean, you have to be accepting of an opinion you disagree with, right? Otherwise you're arguing in bad faith and showing that there is a line you feel can't or shouldn't be crossed.

[quantummagic]

The point is not to allow anything, the point is to be more tolerant that we currently are. If it's legal, we should default to being accepting of it. There are obvious extreme cases where the law gets involved, but the law should do so reluctantly, and only in cases where the vast majority of people agree. Cases where the population are split 50-50 should be hashed out in public, without those in positions of power artificially inhibiting a fair and open dialog.

[danaris]

And what if the current administration changes the law to say that anything criticizing Trump is illegal?

What if they change the law to say that hate speech against ethnic minorities is legal?

Taking the current law, at any given moment, as our standard for ethics is not a tenable position.

[ImPostingOnHN]

It sounds, then, like you'd be okay with the example in question: a billboard saying you're mentally ill, grooming children for sexual activity, and should be executed, because that is the rhetoric we're discussing, except that it is directed towards people who are LGBT (which you may or may not be)

[quantummagic]

I believe the law should be enforced, and that the legal system should be where these issues get hashed out. And that the legal system should be very suspicious of a need for censorship; they are few and far between.

My personal take is, it's very different saying "I'm against murder", and saying "that man is a murderer". We have libel laws to protect individuals from slander, and I think that's a good thing. But I don't think there should be any prohibition on talking about policy in general.

So it should be legal and tolerated for people to loudly proclaim "all white people are racist", but not put up a billboard of some white dude, and claim he is a racist, unless you're prepared to defend that allegation in court.

[ImPostingOnHN]

It still sounds, then, like you'd be okay with the example in question: a billboard saying you're mentally ill, grooming children for sexual activity, and should be executed.

Because again, that is exactly the rhetoric we're discussing: Rhetoric which says 'X is mentally ill, grooming children for sexual activity, and should be executed'.

If it's okay to say it when X is an LGBT person, or all LGBT people, then it is also okay to say it when X is you. So why try to sue for something you are okay with?

Conversely, if it is inappropriate censorship to try to moderate such messaging when X is an LGBT person, or all LGBT people, then it is also inappropriate censorship to try to moderate such messaging when X is you.

[ImPostingOnHN]

While we're at it, maybe the billboard includes some false claims about the subject engaging in inappropriate and/or illegal behavior with children, etc.

After all, no line means no line, right? That's what the minorities in question are being subjected to, that's the sort of rhetoric we're discussing. Indeed, such a billboard would be as much about "protecting the children" as the example OP gave.