[A free speech thought puzzle. I will reveal the answer when I am off my comment timer.]

Oh boy. Civil unions don’t deserve wedding cakes, Hitler is okay in newspapers but not for kids, pronouns offend...

It’s times like this that I genuinely resent ImgFlip for capping threads, because this one’s got it all!

Ight so I was kinda hoping for more candidates other than TobyThePug to chime in with their thoughts before giving mine.

But I promised to reveal the “answer,” sooooo, here it goes

In a “true” free-speech country, the decision would be entirely up to the newspaper. If the newspaper wants to decline the ad, it can. The government cannot compel the newspaper to speak on the Nazi’s behalf. Nor would the government be able to force the newspaper to not run the ad. Nor would the government be able to prevent the Nazi from setting up his own newspaper to espouse his views.

So, the “free speech vs. hate speech” debate ultimately comes down to a question of publisher values. If you are in some way responsible for the content put out by a newspaper or some other platform (be it a meme site or a meme stream, hint hint), you can’t duck taking a side on this, ultimately.

And where I personally land on this question is not running the pro-Hitler ad: because it has the near-certainty of hijacking and poisoning and derailing all the other beneficial content put out by the newspaper. It’s in both the newspaper’s and the community’s interest not to feature that kind of hateful content.

lol what did you get a comment timer for, paid troll?

Ironic

Well it was a meme that looked a little something like this

To clarify: I spoke in haste and I don’t actually think you’re repugnant

This is just an interesting pairing of an amusing image of a certain breed of dog along with a high school-level vocabulary word

No idea what would make them delete a meme like that

Join me in standing up against this injustice?

You got deleted for calling me repugnant? That is silly, but you did once say that the injustices I faced were justified, so maybe this will teach you a lesson.

Perhaps calling you repugnant (in haste and obvious error) with a tongue-in-cheek meme is not equivalent to calling other memers pedophiles and invalidating entire groups of people due to their sexuality and whatever else you have done to earn the deletions and timers you complain of

I dunno man

Fancy Furret will just have to put this in his pipe and smoke it some more

How am I invalidating groups of people?

What are your feelings on homosexuals?

I believe that homosexuals are committing terrible sins and offences against God. But I also support the right for them to sicken their soul, because I have no right to control the lives of others. I support homosexual rights like civil unions, just as long as they do not affect other people. Shoving homosexuality in the faces of young children, and forcing people to call them by their "preferred pronouns" and bake them gay wedding cakes is just wrong.

I will commend you once again for answering a direct question directly. I will be charitable and say it is one of your redeeming qualities.

Now, all that those reading along have to do is determine for themselves whether those opinions constitute an invalidation of homosexuals.

It's in your hands now, folks, my work here is done.

Thanks, I think.

Would you run the full-page pro-Hitler ad?

If the pro-Hitler ad does not encourage violence towards anyone in serious manner, then it should be allowed, but not for children.

Outstanding move

/s

Hope some other candidates weigh in

What’s the matter with supporting free speech? Do you have a problem with that?

“What’s the matter with supporting free speech? Do you have a problem with that?”

A) How do you think supporting Hitler is not also encouraging or at least implicating violence? Also, what is a ‘serious manner?’

B) How do you propose to keep a publicly available newspaper away from kids?

"How do you think supporting Hitler is not also encouraging or at least implicating violence? Also, what is a ‘serious manner?’"

Because I quite clearly stated that I would not allow an advert that encourages violence. And by "serious manner", I mean that it is not being done as a joke.

"How do you propose to keep a publicly available newspaper away from kids?"

How do you propose to keep swimsuit magazines away from kids?

“Because I quite clearly stated that I would not allow an advert that encourages violence. And by "serious manner", I mean that it is not being done as a joke.”

Thank you for clarifying but at the risk of being repetitious, wouldn’t a Nazi ad contain violence implicitly? By that I mean we know what the history of the Nazi party is. It would be safe to assume an extermination of “inferior” races is implied, subliminally or otherwise.

“How do you propose to keep swimsuit magazines away from kids?”

I could easily make the argument that keeping kids from a Playboy or a Hustler magazine isn’t nearly as important and keeping Nazi propaganda from young, impressionable minds.

I saw plenty of nudie mags as a kid and I actually turned out to be a pretty well-adjusted, responsible, respectful adult. Who knows what would’ve happened if my mind had been poisoned by Nazi (or any other) propaganda.

"Thank you for clarifying but at the risk of being repetitious, wouldn’t a Nazi ad contain violence implicitly? By that I mean we know what the history of the Nazi party is. It would be safe to assume an extermination of “inferior” races is implied, subliminally or otherwise."

You cannot censor things because you believe it implies something. If the advert itself does not call for violence, then it should be allowed.

"I could easily make the argument that keeping kids from a Playboy or a Hustler magazine isn’t nearly as important and keeping Nazi propaganda from young, impressionable minds."

I would argue the opposite.

Than why do you and your fan club shove heterosexuality in our faces.

If you want to go there, then heterosexuality is being shoved in your face 24/7. It is nature. There is nothing wrong with that.

it is nature just like homosexuality. Animals can be gay

The Bible says that it is an abomination.

Not as much of an abomination as you

“You cannot censor things because you believe it implies something. If the advert itself does not call for violence, then it should be allowed.”

Ok, let me propose an alternative; I’m not sure where you’re from (‘advert’ struck me as British...please forgive the assumption), but would you have a a problem with a NAMBLA ad (NAMBLA standing for North American Man-Boy Love Association)? They’re not advertising pedophelia per se, but everyone knows and it’s generally accepted that’s what they’re all about.

OR, do you recognize what’s implied and shut it down because that’s the responsible thing to do?

You are correct in assuming I am British. And I think I misinterpreted the original question. Is this hypothetical advert from the Nazi Party itself, or is it just an advert with a swastika?

I’m not sure how to answer because, to me, a hypothetical ad for the Nazi party and an ad with just a swastika are one and the same.

My previously posted question (regarding NAMBLA) is simply a parallel hypothetical.

If the advert supports Nazi ideology, including their mass genocides, then it should not be allowed, and neither should a pro-NAMBLA advert. But if the advert just contains a swastika, then that is fine.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

Cheers to civility.