But censorship of the Christchurch video is "due process and the rule of law"?

I can point you to the New Zealand Act of Parliament that allows this to happen? I can link you to the reporting on the court cases?

The fact you don't like it doesn't mean it's not "due process and the rule of law" as decided by the people of New Zealand over the last 70 years or so (a lot of our law seems to date from the 60s or so, I assume this sort of this was discussed a bit in the general zeitgeist before then).

The government making a list of contraband information is fundamentally incompatible with a free society. The fact that it was used to censor the Christchurch video, or any other evil, matters not.

Also, individual laws and court cases can very much trample on due process and the rule of law. It doesn't matter how long standing they are.

Having parliaments and courts doesn't automatically result in a free society. It requires constant effort by the people to keep those institutions in check. When we fail to do that, then "the race to the bottom" ensues.

Ah! Now we are getting to the crux of the matter. You consider a set of values a necessity for a free society. That is (mostly) orthogonal to rule of law. Rule of law might be one of those values, but is not sufficient by itself.

As for the other values, you think absolute free speech is necessary for a free society. New Zealand disagrees with you.

Edit: the US government disagrees too, actually. So I guess you are not free either? (Assuming your location here.)

You seem to think that it's possible to have a free society that locks people up for possessing information that the government deems objectionable. Words mean things, and sometimes, those meanings aren't up for debate.

Whether governments think this is okay is irrelevant. Governments have labeled all sorts of things as consistent with due process and the rule of law. Censorship, mass surveillance, waterboarding, drone killing, you name it. It's supposedly justified because there's laws and institutions that "authorized" it. I don't buy that. That's rule by law, not rule of law.

Also this is kind of besides the point, but when governments police the possesion of information, that's not only a freedom of speech issue. It's also a freedom of thought issue.

Genuine question: where does CSAM and yelling fire in a theatre fit into your conception of a free society?

Bad example. Yelling fire in a crowded theater may be questionable, but there is no law prohibiting me from using the word "fire" in a discussion or on a protest sign.

Your response sums up my objection to these kinds of policy. You frame my arguments as some kind of attachment to the most heinous crime in spite of any clarifications I make. Governments operate the same way. Any questionable policies they enforce, it's always for the people. Opposition are terrorists and child abusers.

I made my arguments very clear. I don't support crime, ever. But that doesn't mean I support taking away individual rights essential to a free society.

I disagree that you argument is as clear as you say it is. This is what I'm trying to ask you: do you think that there is any speech, any expression, that can/should be a crime?

You believe in free speech, good, so do I. But in a reasonable society everything has limits the only question is where those limits are.

I'm not doing the "think of the children" thing, I'm trying to probe the edges of the argument you are putting forth.

There are some people that think that possession and distribution of CSAM should not be illegal on free speech ground. That's a position I don't share. Where do you stand?

Or, to remove you objections to that line of argument, what about revenge porn? Is that speech that shouldn't be punished? What rights does the subject of the revenge porn have and do they counter any free speech right the publisher has?

This is a subtle and complex subject, I don't believe there are simple answers.

Also,

>Words mean things, and sometimes, those meanings aren't up for debate.

Wittgenstein would like a word (heh).

I think it's impossible to have a good faith discussion with people whose response to an argument is that words can mean anything.