Quote Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF View Post
I also think there is a line for free speech - when it becomes an unfounded criminal accusation, or is very likely to incite immediate panic. So, no slander/libel, and no yelling "fire" at the movies. Other than that, I can find no reason beyond personal distaste or fear of offense to ban or censor things. My personal distaste is not sufficient, and we have no right to never be offended by things.
Offense is certainly unavoidable, hence why there's plenty of "offensive" matter available in every medium. But when it comes to the kinds of material that get banned in situations like this, it's never simply because "someone might get offended if they see it". It's always more serious - the material in question goes beyond mere offense, and actively supports and promotes (or casts in a positive light) something that the overwhelming majority of the population find abhorrent and that the laws finds seriously criminal. To quote a commentator from a recent law reform, it's about restricting the ability to promote or propagate ideas that simply have no place in a civilised society.

If defamation (libel and slander) are to remain illegal, then why shouldn't other subjects be open to censorship? After all, some might say, defamation is just lies. Lies that can be countered with rebuttals. Why should one person's reputation or sensibilities affect what can be said by every other person in the country?

The censorship regimes in place just allow society to say, "you're a sick smurf for wanting to turn something like that into a game, and an even sicker smurf for trying to market it." It's a sign of a very impotent society when 'anything goes' and any idea, no matter how repugnant, has to be treated as equally valid and equally valuable to avoid offending depraved degenerates.