The anti-boycott law is absolutely a political restriction on freedom of speech: it prevents companies from answering questions about whether they source or interact with Israel and exists specifically to try and stop citizens mounting grassroots campaigns against Israeli actions. It's specifically intended to crush organised resistance to a foreign (!) government, which is the point of censorship.

+1 I think you make a reasonable argument. I'm not entirely sure that companies should enjoy the same protections as individuals. Being an employee places you under contractual obligations that may restrict your freedom of speech, which can be resonable as I discussed previously. I'm open to being persuaded on this specific issue.

> For me Porn is easy too. If it only involves consenting adults, it's fine. If it doesn't then other crimes have been committed and distributing it is de facto complicity by association in those crimes.

You only have to deal with what "consenting adults" means(currently a hotbed of political discussion and activity), and what "distribution" means(a fundamental question behind the drug war, copyright infringement, and so on).

> I'd add incitement to commit crimes as an issue. But that falls under complicity or conspiracy to commit a crime. If the speech in question doesn't cross that line, then it should be free.

And where this line lies is not a topic of contention.

> That only leaves slander and libel. These are civil, not criminal matters and should be prosecuted as private matters based on the harm done to the individuals so slandered or libeled

That doesn't really explain how to define slander or libel, whether there should be exceptions to them ("fair commentary" based on presented facts, statements about public figures, minor errors..), whether there's a mens rea requirement to defamation, etc.

Most of these things are examples of contentions with not just a moral idea of freedom of speech but with the narrower First Amendment in the US. Legislating speech is complicated precisely because it has so much power and value. If it weren't both wonderful and dangerous, we wouldn't bother...talking...so much about it.

> other crimes have been committed and distributing it is de facto complicity by association in those crimes

How do you feel about news broadcasts showing murders?

Or trespassers?

I feel fine about them, thanks for asking. I think it's reasonable to make a distinction between those and images of sexual crimes on the basis of protecting the victims depicted in illegal pornography. Reportage also serves a valuable informative social purpose which images of sex crimes do not serve.

What if the victims of the sex crime are dead (of natural causes)?

How about non-reporters using murder footage for some dumb purpose like background footage to their halloween album?

You can draw reasonable lines, but it's in a very different place from "depicts a crime yes/no".

> What if the victims of the sex crime are dead (of natural causes)?

Still ok to ban it. Clearly I am putting pornography in a different category from other forms of images and 'speech' but I'm comfortable doing so.

> How about non-reporters using murder footage for some dumb purpose like background footage to their halloween album?

Fine.

> You can draw reasonable lines, but it's in a very different place from "depicts a crime yes/no".

I agree. Depicting crimes isn't the problem, there's the issue of preventing incitement and blocking avenues for funding criminal activities. Pornography is so particularly and differently vulnerable to these abuses that I think special treatment under the law is reasonable.

EU data protection law doesn't require contracts.

I think it's reasonable to place legal obligation on people and organisations that collect data on others. The data isn't their speech even if they own it, in the same way that I can own a book but the author has the copyright because it's in some sense their speech and not mine even though it's in my posession. Data protection laws are an enforced default contract in the same way as copyright. I think it's reasonable to assign rights to individuals over data about them, or pass laws obout how that data should be managed.

So if I share a video of a murder or theft... or even just view such a video shared by others, I'm complicit in the crime?

No. I was specifically talking about pornography. As I explained replying to later comments from other posters, before you posted your comment, I think the dynamics driving pornography are different enough to treat it as a special case.

But I never read any explanation as to why the dynamics are different. Especially considering that films of other crimes can be porn to the right individual (such as snuff).

Defamation laws can be criminal.

I don't think they should be though. Restrictions on free speech should be narrowly restricted to the enforcement of other laws, as in the example I gave of it being reasonable for it to be illegal to incite crimes. I think defamation should be a civil matter.