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.
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.
>Words mean things, and sometimes, those meanings aren't up for debate.
Wittgenstein would like a word (heh).
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.