Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the
freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas
without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term "
freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but
includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
There you go. I didn't think this would be necessary since other people in the thread didn't need the reminder, but I guess this way it's impossible to, as you put it, "Split hairs with lefties"
Thank you.
You are conflating premeditated murder and CP? Both of which are crimes, but are confused as to why CP is not to be made available for random viewing nor the murder video. Is that correct?
You're still taking the word pleasure at its face value, like someone literally gets off when they go and check stuff out online out of curiosity. Then let's change the word "pleasure" in "personal satisfaction". Would that be clearer for you?
Wrong. That is your assumption. I am in no way shape or form assuming a literal load blown unless you are referring to CP as you stated. The mosque shooting was political. If some freaks got off to that, that is their deal. The video was notproduced based on the intent that a bunch of naked chimps fap to it.
Based on this and the previous "lefties" remark, should I assume that you think there's some kind of conspiracy behind the video and those that would like it to disappear from the Internet? Because I really don't care about that and it's beside the point of the thread. Just a heads up in case you wanted to bring that up.
You don't care about it, but many are on point when they are suggesting that the actions by the NZ governement were extreme, and it did not end there. It was an active campaign to smear his name in the process. And, that the media is doing so needs to be questioned. Media is not representing the news anywhere near close to the truth of the issue.
Since you refuse to engage in the intellectual exercise this thread was meant to be even when I ask explicitly, I guess I'll take it to you directly: are you saying that, if the shooter started to masturbate on the dead bodies and wanted the video to be a snuff film for sociopaths to get off to, as in it would be intended for pleasure like any cp video, you'd be against it's distribution? What about videos of children abused, but not sexually, as in the are not intended for pleasure? What about if someone made cp for academic purposes and was 100% truthful about it, so it would still be not intended for pleasure? Would they be fair game to host and redistribute then? Tell me what you think about it, where you'd draw the line of acceptability and why.
There is no line of acceptablity when it comes to abusing children. That is a demented mind that seeks out that sort of 'entertainment.' Clearly, there exist many fucked in the head wastes of meat dragging their arses across the face of the earth and harming kids for their own selfish gratification, and many that choose to look the other way; Making them culpable for the crimes.
You are mashing your arguement trying to equate the killings to CP. You can't. They are not even vaguely comparable.
What if killing for the sake of a political statement was intended for sexual release, though? Like some fucked up rp scenario. Would that change your opinion about it?
That is stretching well past the bounds of reason.
I guess this says a lot about the human race, then.
No, that says alot about specific individuals.
This is an old people fallacy where you believe that since before today it was harder to gain the knowledge that, indeed, the world is full of fucked up people, that it wasn't full of fucked up people before today. It's not that the crime rates are increasing, it's just your perception of them that's increasing and mainstream media doesn't help (with their sensationalist titles created to sell more). But objective data showed that this is the best time to be alive and crime hasn't been lower globally. But this is besides the point of the thread.
The world has always been filled with fucked up people, and the punshiment was harsher for their crimes. So, you would need to pick a time period for which you wish to make your argument relevant.
You do know that a lot of children are sold by their parents because they live in a shithole country and by selling their children they get both a lot of money and one less mouth to feed, right? Obviously we don't have official data (that I know of), but I suspect that the percentage of parents guilty of this in third world countries is not... unsubstantial.
Yes, and again, in this part of your argument you will need to make your argument specific to the geography.
