[bionsuba]

Technically speaking, yes.

Even if it's neo-nazi propaganda, making any speech based on opinions that's not directly causing physical harm illegal is creating a class of thought crime.

What other way could one classify it? People would be going to jail for wrong-think.

[jcommon]

1. It is hard to accept, but imho jurisdiction and law has to deal with things that cannot be defined in a technical way.

2. Although I already implied by 1. that it is not possible to make a clear machine-executable rule for everything, I would not agree that "any speech based on opinions" is a thought crime. If you constantly bully someone, althought just with words, he might even be more hurt than if you just had smashed his face once leaving him with 2 or 3 scars.

Not trying to say that free speech is not important. But I wouldn't call everything that is possible by moving your mouth free speech. Note that I also unfortunately cannot provide a solution for this right now: I also don't like this new ruling because it is somehow based on some kind of definition what exactly this free speech is and with 1. in mind this is not possible easily.

My statement would basically be that I just cannot support the ongoing discussion here that not banning anything is an overall better option.