“We are raising funds to support a critical legal defense in the fight against unchecked corporate power and a system that continues to favor the few over everyone else. This case isn’t just about one individual—it’s about challenging a status quo that protects the interest of the powerful at the expense of justice and fairness,” read one of the fundraising pages that was quickly removed by GoFundMe.
Eh, I’m talking about speech that isn’t the direct result of real harm being done. I think the distinction is pretty clear don’t you?
No if it was then debates on what constitutes “speech” or “harm” wouldn’t occur.
People can AI generate convincing CP images. Should those be allowed? Who was actively harmed? What about animation?
I didn’t say who individually to kill I’m just saying people should go kill a certain group. Should that be allowed? Who was actively harmed? I can’t be held accountable for actions of randos who take my jokes and sarcastic comments literally!
I don’t see why not, if nobody is being harmed in its creation. Just because something is disturbing doesn’t mean it needs to be illegal.
Saying it doesn’t harm anyone, it’s the people doing it who cause harm, that seems pretty clear cut to me.
Well at least you’re honest about your twisted view. No debating you out of that weird position.