[glesica]

I agree that protecting victims is a noble goal, but I still don't think it is a criminal matter. If anything, victims should be able to sue people for distributing such materials, but even that brings up a troubling slippery slope.

The problem is that you end up censoring material because it offends someone. Never mind that in this case the offense is truly terrible and unquestionably legitimate, the principle is still the same. And if we censor something because one person is offended, how can we really say "no" to the next, gravely offended person who comes along? Where will it end?

[foobarbazqux]

If it's not illegal to distribute them, there's more of a black market incentive to produce them.

Also, your argument about a slippery slope with respect to limits on free speech is in the classical form of a "slippery slope fallacy" because you imply there is no reasonable middle ground without providing compelling evidence. Plenty of countries set limits on speech and function just fine - most or all of the G8 besides the US I believe. (And even the US in this instance.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[glesica]

It's not a slippery slope to limit speech. It's a slippery slope to limit speech based on that speech being offensive to a person or group. There is plenty of evidence for this, just look at the Muslim world, or the world as hardline American Christians would like to see it. There are a million groups and individuals who are genuinely and actually offended by some bit of content that is currently legal. Open the floodgates just a little and they will all try to shove their way through.

[foobarbazqux]

I know you meant limits on hateful or offensive speech. However, for your slippery slope argument not to be a fallacy, you have to demonstrate that there is no possibility of a middle ground. But such a middle ground already exists, in just about every western democracy besides the US.

[glesica]

You can keep your footing on a slippery slope for awhile, but I personally believe that it is an unstable equilibrium in this case. I will admit, though, that in some sense all societies are just in temporary equilibrium, so maybe it's all a moot point. I still feel that it is better to remain firmly at the top of the hill rather than bet that you can keep your footing on the slope.

As for examples, France is in the news for the ban on certain Muslim attire and Turkey is apparently sliding toward theocracy. The argument I'm making is similar to the argument against letting people have all the guns they want (which of course the US does, to terrifying effect): if you don't give people the tools to commit violent acts easily, they will commit fewer violent acts.

[foobarbazqux]

This is a bit of a caricature, but the way I see it is there is a valley between two hills. The free speech guys are at the top of one hill, and the social conservatives are at the top of the other. Neither group realizes that the other group lives exclusively on the opposing hill, because to them, anybody they've ever met from the valley seems just like the people who live on the other hill. So they're both afraid of sliding down the slope into oblivion. (Imagine what will happen if we let our girls go to school! Imagine what will happen if we don't let people advocate genocide!) Meanwhile a lot of us are calling up from the valley and saying, "Hey, it's really pretty nice down here, and your hills don't seem that big anyway, so why don't you join us?"

[ewbuoi]

Can you find a source that doesn't show the UK having 5-10 times more violent crime than the US, per capita? I couldn't believe the numbers at first, so I tried but couldn't find anything saying otherwise.

I think the UK is a great example that violent crime will happen despite restricting weapons.

[adammil]

Please cite an example of how the number of guns a US citizen can have creates a terrifying effect? Or did you mean simply that you are terrified of guns?

[foobarbazqux]

I think he's referring to statistics about gun deaths:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

[felixfurtak]

probably referring to mass shootings.

[rmc]

how can we really say "no" to the next, gravely offended person who comes along? Where will it end?

Y'know this is Europe, not USA. We already have decent laws (going back decades) about lots of things that would not pass the free speech thing in the USA (e.g. privacy law, hate speech law). Claiming slippery slope isn't really a persuasive argument.