On the same token, suppressing it just makes it sneaky, and intelligently designed to be sneaky with undertones easily denied as even existing.
Yes, but at least it is contained a bit.
I keep suggesting to round them up and exterminate them, but that is apparently not good, and will make me "the same as they are", although I don't aggree with that.
So, untill that, then contain and supress. Everything can't be free. Example: Me. I should not be free to assemble and speek my mind as I please, and a lot of my socio-political opinions are harmful to society
I joke of course, I don't genuinely want genocides and stuff, but if I did, I'd keep it to myself. Private sphere.
This whole free-speech thing should be about common sense anyway.
It's about "discussing soundly" an idea.
Where does the line go?
What if I describe detailed texts, highly manipulative in nature, about how little time there is left, how we must act now, before it is too late, and drive all the outlanders away, by force if necesary? That was what Fjordland had been writing, freely, and he was openly credited by Breivik for being his driving force. Imagine how awkward Fjordland felt
But these things have real reprecussions.
We know it and we see it.
Freedom of expression has tons of little limitations that we take for granted anyway, copyright for example. I can't just decide to express something someone else has expressed, word by word, even if my expression is free. I also can't decide to express myself through fashion by dressing exactly as a uniformed police officer. And so on. Nitpicking now, but you get the point. Principles should end up being about something practical and common-sensy, not just being a rule.