The downside for me, personally, is the possibility and increased likely hood that good speech I support will be next. I think government will use it as an excuse to say gay people can’t march, or BLM cannot march.

The downside for me, personally, is the possibility and increased likely hood that good speech I support will be next. I think government will use it as an excuse to say gay people can’t march, or BLM cannot march.

The downside for me, personally, is the possibility and increased likely hood that good speech I support will be next. I think government will use it as an excuse to say gay people can’t march, or BLM cannot march.

The downside for me, personally, is the possibility and increased likely hood that good speech I support will be next. I think government will use it as an excuse to say gay people can’t march, or BLM cannot march.

The downside for me, personally, is the possibility and increased likely hood that good speech I support will be next. I think government will use it as an excuse to say gay people can’t march, or BLM cannot march.

The downside for me, personally, is the possibility and increased likely hood that good speech I support will be next. I think government will use it as an excuse to say gay people can’t march, or BLM cannot march.

The downside for me, personally, is the possibility and increased likely hood that good speech I support will be next. I think government will use it as an excuse to say gay people can’t march, or BLM cannot march.

Well, I am incredibly stubborn.

Love that song.

What’s the cost on food though?

Not that this obtuse asshole is even going to look at that info.

Excellent examples though.

The downside for me, personally, is the possibility and increased likely hood that good speech I support will be next. I think government will use it as an excuse to say gay people can’t march, or BLM cannot march.

Without freedom of speech, there are places right now in the US that would suppress the speech of gays and minorities. And if you go back even just a couple decades, that increases dramatically. There is no way we would have achieved the level of social freedom and acceptance without the right to free speech.

Your entire argument relies on government always acting in accordance with what YOU think is proper. You necessarily ignore the reality of bad actors and unintended consequences.

There doesn’t need to be a specific example from ma certain time period that is convenient for your argument to prove the point. Speech you agree with and that is good HAS BEEN suppressed in many places and times. That makes it POSSIBLE TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

It happens right in your own country. Did your government break the law and journalists want to let people know? NOPE! Suppressed by law.