[lucasRW]

It does. That's why GrapheneOS left France; Signal is considering doing so to if ChatControl passes. Von Der Leyen and Breton clearly mentioned the possibility of banning X. And there are many other "signals".

But yeah we get it, there's bad censorhip (Iran, China, Russia), and there is the good censorhip, sorry, i meant "protection of children", when it's the EU. :o)

[mapontosevenths]

> there's bad censorhip (Iran, China, Russia), and there is the good censorhip

I understand that you're being facetious here, but this is literally true.

Words kill people sometimes, and in the same way that my right to swing my arm stops where your nose begins your right to say whatever you want stops where my safety begins.

Or to rephrase it, nobody can have free speech at all if others are allowed to threaten your health and safety for it, which automatically implies that violent and hateful speech must be curtailed. It is a variation on the paradox of tolerance.

Yes, there is room to debate exactly where the line is, but the fact that there is a line is fairly well settled except amongst the rabid.

[lucasRW]

I dont need Thierry Breton or Van Der Leyen to tell me which podcasts I am allowed to listened to, but thanks for the well-intentionned thoughts for my safety anyway.

[ImJamal]

I would be very interested in hearing some of these words capable of killing. I have only heard of such words in fiction so I am quite surprised to learn they are real.

[frumplestlatz]

You’re advocating for a censorship regime that would put me in jail for words that you happen to think are dangerous.

Ergo, your words threaten my safety.