I agree that it's necessary to be wary of how far we go in the interpretation of that decision, as it can indeed lead to censorship. But at the same time, the concept of freedom of speech was put into place for the exchange of ideas and political protection, not to endorse wank material. That said, I can hardly fault sites like Gab for disallowing it, especially considering there are a far larger number of sites providing exclusively that type of material in a much more easily searched and categorized presentation.
I see what you mean and generally agree in regard to Gab though I think problem #1 there is unstable guy at the top. Dissenter really could be something but they seem determined to hang the albatross of their web browser around its neck.
I guess freedom of expression is probably too broad a distinction, but I was thinking along the lines of the argument of Miller vs California (1973):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California
I agree that it's necessary to be wary of how far we go in the interpretation of that decision, as it can indeed lead to censorship. But at the same time, the concept of freedom of speech was put into place for the exchange of ideas and political protection, not to endorse wank material. That said, I can hardly fault sites like Gab for disallowing it, especially considering there are a far larger number of sites providing exclusively that type of material in a much more easily searched and categorized presentation.
I see what you mean and generally agree in regard to Gab though I think problem #1 there is unstable guy at the top. Dissenter really could be something but they seem determined to hang the albatross of their web browser around its neck.