No, he really wouldn't have. You act as though the minority racists ran the entirety of the country and that's just not true. If your statements were based in fact he never would've gotten television or print coverage, and he got ample amounts of both.
You can keep saying that it will be applied to both good and evil until you're blue in the face but it won't make it fact.
If we allow the government to punish people for rape, next thing you know they'll be punishing people for consensual sex. It's a double edged sword.
That's really how ridiculous the argument sounds.
Dr. King was in fact censored, ignored, slandered and misrepresented by the television and print media. Especially when he protested the war in Vietnam and began his poor people's campaign.
>You can keep saying that it will be applied to both good and evil until you're blue in the face but it won't make it fact.
How are you so sure corporate censorship can never be used for malicious purposes?
Was the war in Iraq a good thing? Because MSNBC censorsed/fired their popular TV host Phil Donahue for questioning it.
Which is why it is important to have equality of speech.
"Slippery slope" is a poor analogy for restricting speech. A more accurate analogy would be a double edged sword which cuts both ways.