[tallanvor]

So, as an example, then, you would be ok with someone putting up billboards with your picture calling for you to be executed? I mean, you have to be accepting of an opinion you disagree with, right? Otherwise you're arguing in bad faith and showing that there is a line you feel can't or shouldn't be crossed.

[quantummagic]

The point is not to allow anything, the point is to be more tolerant that we currently are. If it's legal, we should default to being accepting of it. There are obvious extreme cases where the law gets involved, but the law should do so reluctantly, and only in cases where the vast majority of people agree. Cases where the population are split 50-50 should be hashed out in public, without those in positions of power artificially inhibiting a fair and open dialog.

[danaris]

And what if the current administration changes the law to say that anything criticizing Trump is illegal?

What if they change the law to say that hate speech against ethnic minorities is legal?

Taking the current law, at any given moment, as our standard for ethics is not a tenable position.

[ImPostingOnHN]

It sounds, then, like you'd be okay with the example in question: a billboard saying you're mentally ill, grooming children for sexual activity, and should be executed, because that is the rhetoric we're discussing, except that it is directed towards people who are LGBT (which you may or may not be)

[ImPostingOnHN]

While we're at it, maybe the billboard includes some false claims about the subject engaging in inappropriate and/or illegal behavior with children, etc.

After all, no line means no line, right? That's what the minorities in question are being subjected to, that's the sort of rhetoric we're discussing. Indeed, such a billboard would be as much about "protecting the children" as the example OP gave.