Indeed, which is why we limit freedom of speech. These things don't happen without the public's approval.
This isn't the world where you get to do what you want. This is the world where you get to do what government (= the public in a democracy) allows you to do.
I'm sorry you thought otherwise.
I get the desire to defend free speech, but as everyone is already aware, several people have ALREADY died directly from this horrific and dangerous event, organized by criminals and terrorists.
Be thankful AirBnB has sided with safety.
Welcome to the real world, where people actually die as a result of the words they say, instead of "theory" world.
Oh, quite to the contrary. The citizenry of this country and its government are actually quite in agreement with me. That's why we have freedom of speech here - because we believe the principle outweighs the negative effects of subversive speech.
>I get the desire to defend free speech, but as everyone is already aware, several people have ALREADY died directly from this horrific and dangerous event, organized by criminals and terrorists.
So, we should ban anything capable of causing deaths? We don't ban cars. We don't ban airplanes. We don't even ban guns. Why don't we ban these things? Because we believe that the number of deaths they cause is acceptable relative to the value they provide. Yes, that's right. We callously calculate that cars are worth more to us than the thousands of people they kill every year. And if cars are worth that, freedom of speech is definitely worth the tiny handful of people who's live it may end annually.
You could equally and more accurately say government governs under the permission of the people.
> Don't ever ask simple questions. It shows lack of thought.
No, much better to dodge counter-arguments to which you are incapable of formulating a response.