“Harmful”<> “illegal”.
All speech someone wants to censor is speech they claim is harmful. No one says “This must be banned because it’s harmless! Good, even!”
If, say, the head of HHS claimed recommending *vaccines* was harmful, would you give him the tools to ban speech promoting vaccines?
All speech someone wants to censor is speech they claim is harmful. No one says “This must be banned because it’s harmless! Good, even!”
If, say, the head of HHS claimed recommending *vaccines* was harmful, would you give him the tools to ban speech promoting vaccines?
Comments
But tobacco is harmful and not illegal and it's been highly regulated and found to have liability.
how about nazi recruiting ads?
And, to my broader point, the outcome of this case always struck me as gross but I can't decide what *law* could've prevented this without doing greater harm.
https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-force-v-facebook-2d-circuit