Thanks for the respond. Haha
I should clarify that when I mean free speech, I meant the default and the idea behind absolute legal speech in debate for morality, so like say a furry who believes in letting people debate even what may be considered dangerous but still legal to say because the furry believes in absolute free legal speech like some places of internet likes to believe. I actually myself did see some arguments from a certain taboo topic that I found interesting from a certain group because of some logic growing up (which I won't say here but it's an example maybe). It's probably dangerous but techionally there was points I found fair alone and didn't want to believe in censorship of that (in terms of idealogy of legal freedom of debate and morality) even if it might trigger fear or something similar, when it comes to what is moral within people talking in the furry fandom to a degree.
But anyway for some of the examples you provided, some of it probably does fall under constitional free speech but not sure if false info of legality is one of them. Of course, a private website does have a right to ban it, just that I was thinking in terms of free lawful debate in general within the fandom and the ethics of respecting people having reason behind it. Say for example, that website Peter Singer supported to combat "cancel culture" and a furry was like, there is this very taboo article in it that may have bad idealogy but I find some points about the website message interesting and the article might be a good example to a bigger picture or some points in article good (if there really is, I am not too sure myself).
I also believe some people on certain art sites can handle it and I did in the past did attempt debate about phycology and paralhilia to some degree in a big art site. But it wasn't a let's normalize pedophilia flat out or something like that but more like "studies prove this or that when handling how these people get help" kinda stuff, similar to one thing to said here I think. Sorry I was saying this part because you said it's bad for this topic to be handled alone on some art sites but I don't entirally agree with it unless you meant the really bad kind of baseless speech or certain other ones.
I do want to personally note that I probably am on the side of say banning a message coming out as a "MAP" if it's not clear as to why or clear for the wrong reason because of how very dangerous that is when it comes to specific places too, but at the same time some of my stuff was just speaking from a bigger general idea of social issues and debate. Haha
I also should clarify that I do not believe children can consent.
There are also a couple of taboo arguments I did grew up with I still find interesting even today due to the arguments alone but a part of me wishes I could see some debunked so I don't have to deal with having it anymore. Hahaha
I should also note that for one argument you said, I don't believe all predators are by default trying to do illegal acts because I do believe some do try to get help, redemption belief stuff, that kind of stuff but I can 100% agree with banning people attempting to break the law and banning people trying to do wrong that does hurt but legal. And for who is changed, that's up for debate I guess.
---
Also involving another user replying to me, I want to point out my argument involving pure fiction was toward idealogy in general that actually does think pure fiction does itself cause people to offend, but pointed out that in some cases there could be wrong spots (say a person attracted to children going to a place filled with real children and the fiction was in that location, luring them there with the real children being there, which isn't good.) At the same time, if say one had pure fiction alone away from children but then decides to go after a real child from that point, then I fully blame the predator, not the fiction. For sure I think. Anyway my argument was more toward the idea I didn't agree with and wasn't meant to a reply to anyone personally. Also for personal sake I hope anyone in the debate here is an adult since I wouldn't feel comfort if anyone here is a minor.
Thanks for the respond. Haha
I should clarify that when I mean free speech, I meant the default and the idea behind absolute legal speech in debate for morality, so like say a furry who believes in letting people debate even what may be considered dangerous but still legal to say because the furry believes in absolute free legal speech like some places of internet likes to believe. I actually myself did see some arguments from a certain taboo topic that I found interesting from a certain group because of some logic growing up (which I won't say here but it's an example maybe). It's probably dangerous but techionally there was points I found fair alone and didn't want to believe in censorship of that (in terms of idealogy of legal freedom of debate and morality) even if it might trigger fear or something similar, when it comes to what is moral within people talking in the furry fandom to a degree.
But anyway for some of the examples you provided, some of it probably does fall under constitional free speech but not sure if false info of legality is one of them. Of course, a private website does have a right to ban it, just that I was thinking in terms of free lawful debate in general within the fandom and the ethics of respecting people having reason behind it. Say for example, that website Peter Singer supported to combat "cancel culture" and a furry was like, there is this very taboo article in it that may have bad idealogy but I find some points about the website message interesting and the article might be a good example to a bigger picture or some points in article good (if there really is, I am not too sure myself).
I also believe some people on certain art sites can handle it and I did in the past did attempt debate about phycology and paralhilia to some degree in a big art site. But it wasn't a let's normalize pedophilia flat out or something like that but more like "studies prove this or that when handling how these people get help" kinda stuff, similar to one thing to said here I think. Sorry I was saying this part because you said it's bad for this topic to be handled alone on some art sites but I don't entirally agree with it unless you meant the really bad kind of baseless speech or certain other ones.
I do want to personally note that I probably am on the side of say banning a message coming out as a "MAP" if it's not clear as to why or clear for the wrong reason because of how very dangerous that is when it comes to specific places too, but at the same time some of my stuff was just speaking from a bigger general idea of social issues and debate. Haha
I also should clarify that I do not believe children can consent.
There are also a couple of taboo arguments I did grew up with I still find interesting even today due to the arguments alone but a part of me wishes I could see some debunked so I don't have to deal with having it anymore. Hahaha
I should also note that for one argument you said, I don't believe all predators are by default trying to do illegal acts because I do believe some do try to get help, redemption belief stuff, that kind of stuff but I can 100% agree with banning people attempting to break the law and banning people trying to do wrong that does hurt but legal. And for who is changed, that's up for debate I guess.
---
Also involving another user replying to me, I want to point out my argument involving pure fiction was toward idealogy in general that actually does think pure fiction does itself cause people to offend, but pointed out that in some cases there could be wrong spots (say a person attracted to children going to a place filled with real children and the fiction was in that location, luring them there with the real children being there, which isn't good.) At the same time, if say one had pure fiction alone away from children but then decides to go after a real child from that point, then I fully blame the predator, not the fiction. For sure I think. Anyway my argument was more toward the idea I didn't agree with and wasn't meant to a reply to anyone personally. Also for personal sake I hope anyone in the debate here is an adult since I wouldn't feel comfort if anyone here is a minor.