On 27 Feb 2024, "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> posted some
news:urku7n$38rn1$2@dont-email.me:

> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:07:45:
>
>>>It's so odd that there have been no shortage of people slamming me,
>>>but there's just this one fuckhead who hides behind would-be
>>>anonymizing servers, setting up sockpuppet after sockpuppet to do so.
>>>It's amazingly cowardly. You truly think this has thwarted my many
>>>teams of henchmen from finding you in short order to beat you to
>>>death?
>
>>I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?
>
> I'm a user on news.eternal-september.org. I would never ask Ray to
> refuse to accept posts originating at Dizum. Nor would Ray do so.

Ray has a good sense of the value of his posters. Even you.

On 27 Feb 2024, Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> posted some
news:urlkbp$fgm$3@rasp.pasdenom.info:

> Frank Slootweg a écrit le Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:42:20 dans
> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet :
>
>> Get real! Dizum generates nowhere even remotely close to the Google
>> spam of the previous few months.
>
> There was a discussion not long to determine where the spammers
> will go after Google, Dizum seems to be an alternative.

Unlikely for numerous reasons.

>> Anyway, it's up to Ray to decide if he carries Dizum posts or not.
>> It's not upto you, Adam, me or anyone else.
>
> Well can I still say what I want, or do you want to censor me ? :)
>
>> Likewise, it's upto the admin of your server (Yamo?) to not carry
>> Dizum posts, *if* that's what he's doing.
>
> Yes, and I'm happy with that. On the fr.* hierarchy the Dizum posts
> were cancelled for years but the bot that did it stopped working
> unfortunately.

That's incorrect. Following that grand French tradition, it surrendered
first, then it quit working.

Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>Frank Slootweg:

>>>This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved differently
>>>than Big8 usenet.

>>It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
>>usenet" have to do with anything?

>You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
>an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
>public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
>on this kind of things.

I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
have kept my family alive.

>>. . .

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote in
news:urltbs$3fpuv$1@dont-email.me:

> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Frank Slootweg:
>
>>>>This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved
>>>>differently than Big8 usenet.
>
>>>It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
>>>usenet" have to do with anything?
>
>>You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
>>an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic
>>in public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more
>>vigilant on this kind of things.
>
> I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good
> speech, lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship
> wouldn't have kept my family alive.

I always thought you were Iranian.

>
>>>. . .
>

Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17
in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet :

>> You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
>> an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
>> public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
>> on this kind of things.

> I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
> lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
> have kept my family alive.

I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17:

>>>You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
>>>an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
>>>public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
>>>on this kind of things.

>>I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
>>lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
>>have kept my family alive.

>I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
>Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
>said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
>country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
>but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
known whom he was.

If France wants to promote peace, I'd have been a lot more impressed if
the anti-English hatred hadn't re-asserted itself with the UK's
withdrawal from the European Union and new impositions of trade
restrictions. Gee. How can that possibly go wrong?

Please don't promote speech restrictions in the cause of peace.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:02:08 -0000 (UTC), Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17
>in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet :
>
>>> You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
>>> an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
>>> public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
>>> on this kind of things.
>
>> I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
>> lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
>> have kept my family alive.
>
>I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
>Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
>said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
>country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
>but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

all roads lead to rome

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17:

>>>>You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
>>>>an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
>>>>public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
>>>>on this kind of things.

>>>I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
>>>lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
>>>have kept my family alive.

>>I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
>>Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
>>said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
>>country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
>>but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.

> Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
> known whom he was.

> If France wants to promote peace, I'd have been a lot more impressed if
> the anti-English hatred hadn't re-asserted itself with the UK's
> withdrawal from the European Union and new impositions of trade
> restrictions. Gee. How can that possibly go wrong?

> Please don't promote speech restrictions in the cause of peace.

Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those in
power restrict speech.

Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn, and
suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.

It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
<insert issue here>.

I'm married to an Australian, I have these conversations now and then with
her family.

--
Retro Guy

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 15:02:48 +0000, Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17:
>
>>>>>You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
>>>>>an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
>>>>>public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
>>>>>on this kind of things.
>
>>>>I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
>>>>lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
>>>>have kept my family alive.
>
>>>I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
>>>Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
>>>said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
>>>country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
>>>but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.
>
>> Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
>> known whom he was.
>
>> If France wants to promote peace, I'd have been a lot more impressed if
>> the anti-English hatred hadn't re-asserted itself with the UK's
>> withdrawal from the European Union and new impositions of trade
>> restrictions. Gee. How can that possibly go wrong?
>
>> Please don't promote speech restrictions in the cause of peace.
>
>Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those in
>power restrict speech.
>Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
>currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn, and
>suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.
>It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
>the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
><insert issue here>.
>I'm married to an Australian, I have these conversations now and then with
>her family.

some words are more generic and open to interpretation than others,
e.g. "free", "gay", "good", "evil", "god", "hate", "right", "wrong"
can mean anything to anyone at anytime . . . politics and religion

Retro Guy vient de nous annoncer :
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17:
>
>>>>>You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have an
>>>>> european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
>>>>> public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
>>>>> on this kind of things.
>
>>>>I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
>>>>lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
>>>>have kept my family alive.
>
>>>I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
>>> Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
>>> said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
>>> country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
>>> but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.
>
>> Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
>> known whom he was.
>
>> If France wants to promote peace, I'd have been a lot more impressed if
>> the anti-English hatred hadn't re-asserted itself with the UK's
>> withdrawal from the European Union and new impositions of trade
>> restrictions. Gee. How can that possibly go wrong?
>
>> Please don't promote speech restrictions in the cause of peace.
>
> Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those in
> power restrict speech.
>
> Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
> currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn, and
> suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.

They don't even think about it. They think it will keep them
in power or influence.

> It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
> the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
> <insert issue here>.

I agree with you.

But you also have this kind of person in the USA, don't you?
I think of the "woke" or the cancel culture followers.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

Le 28/02/2024 à 16:02, Retro Guy a écrit :

> It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
> the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
> <insert issue here>.

It's difficult because your country is doing this :

<https://observer.com/2022/02/book-banning-is-increasing-across-the-united-states-a-book-burning-in-tennessee/>

So free speech for who ? :)

I don't know where to redirect as I don't really know the Big8, feel free
to go where it's proper.

Le 28/02/2024 à 18:30, llp a écrit :

> But you also have this kind of person in the USA, don't you?
> I think of the "woke" or the cancel culture followers.

Republicans are BURNING books :

<https://observer.com/2022/02/book-banning-is-increasing-across-the-united-states-a-book-burning-in-tennessee/>

llp wrote:

> Retro Guy vient de nous annoncer :
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17:
>>
>>>>>>You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have an
>>>>>> european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
>>>>>> public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
>>>>>> on this kind of things.
>>
>>>>>I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
>>>>>lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
>>>>>have kept my family alive.
>>
>>>>I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
>>>> Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
>>>> said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
>>>> country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
>>>> but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.
>>
>>> Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
>>> known whom he was.
>>
>>> If France wants to promote peace, I'd have been a lot more impressed if
>>> the anti-English hatred hadn't re-asserted itself with the UK's
>>> withdrawal from the European Union and new impositions of trade
>>> restrictions. Gee. How can that possibly go wrong?
>>
>>> Please don't promote speech restrictions in the cause of peace.
>>
>> Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those in
>> power restrict speech.
>>
>> Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
>> currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn, and
>> suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.

> They don't even think about it. They think it will keep them
> in power or influence.

>> It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
>> the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
>> <insert issue here>.

> I agree with you.

> But you also have this kind of person in the USA, don't you?
> I think of the "woke" or the cancel culture followers.

Yes, absolutely. More and more we have people advocating to stifle speech in
the U.S. It's sad to see people pushing for their own rights to be limited.

Fortunately, so far anyway, it's more difficult to ignore a constitutional
amendment than if such did not exist.

--
Retro Guy

Eric M wrote:

> Le 28/02/2024 à 16:02, Retro Guy a écrit :

>> It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
>> the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
>> <insert issue here>.

> It's difficult because your country is doing this :

> <https://observer.com/2022/02/book-banning-is-increasing-across-the-united-states-a-book-burning-in-tennessee/>

> So free speech for who ? :)

I agree that this is an issue. Most of what is reported as book "banning" in the
U.S. currently is removing books from schools. The books are still available to
purchase or read.

Seeing what you link to supports the idea of, "What happens when the other side
controls speech?"

The U.S. is by no means going the right direction, but fortunately it's more difficult
to legislate against free speech than it is in many countries.

I don't want people I agree with to be censored, and I don't want people I disagree
with to be censored.

--
Retro Guy

Le 28/02/2024 à 18:54, Retro Guy a écrit :

> The U.S. is by no means going the right direction, but fortunately it's more
> difficult
> to legislate against free speech than it is in many countries.

And you're about to reelect Trump, the world is looking at you.
> I don't want people I agree with to be censored, and I don't want people I
> disagree
> with to be censored.

This is not what it's about, it's about banning hate speech that can get
people killed. But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.

Eric M wrote:

> Le 28/02/2024 à 18:54, Retro Guy a écrit :

>> The U.S. is by no means going the right direction, but fortunately it's more
>> difficult
>> to legislate against free speech than it is in many countries.

> And you're about to reelect Trump, the world is looking at you.

Let's hope so.

>> I don't want people I agree with to be censored, and I don't want people I
>> disagree
>> with to be censored.

> This is not what it's about, it's about banning hate speech that can get
> people killed. But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.

Words don't kill. If I told you to kill someone, somehow I think you
wouldn't do it.

Our brief discussion here is a great example of my statement that it is hard
for an American to have a discussion about free speech with someone who is
not American. We have a different view of whether the government should have
the power to control speech.

> But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.

Really? I wasn't aware that I should feel unsafe, which I don't.

--
Retro Guy

On Wed, 28 Feb 24 18:05:02 +0000, Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
>
>This is not what it's about, it's about banning hate speech that can get
>people killed. But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.

the russians are coming . . .

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 18:14:07 +0000, Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.com> wrote:
>Eric M wrote:
>> Le 28/02/2024 a 18:54, Retro Guy a ecrit :
>>> The U.S. is by no means going the right direction, but fortunately it's more
>>> difficult
>>> to legislate against free speech than it is in many countries.
>
>> And you're about to reelect Trump, the world is looking at you.
>
>Let's hope so.

always liked trump, not as a politician but as a person; last politician that
i do remember liking was jfk . . . ike's farewell address was pretty good too

>>> I don't want people I agree with to be censored, and I don't want people I
>>> disagree
>>> with to be censored.
>
>> This is not what it's about, it's about banning hate speech that can get
>> people killed. But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.
>
>Words don't kill. If I told you to kill someone, somehow I think you
>wouldn't do it.

but if he can hear voices in his head guiding his actions, best steer clear...

>Our brief discussion here is a great example of my statement that it is hard
>for an American to have a discussion about free speech with someone who is
>not American. We have a different view of whether the government should have
>the power to control speech.
>
>> But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.
>
>Really? I wasn't aware that I should feel unsafe, which I don't.

fear merchants have always found a lucrative market in this world . . . they
sell protection in the form of weaponization, militarization, indoctrination

llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>Retro Guy vient de nous annoncer :
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17:
>>
>>>>>>You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have an
>>>>>> european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
>>>>>> public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
>>>>>> on this kind of things.
>>
>>>>>I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
>>>>>lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
>>>>>have kept my family alive.
>>
>>>>I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
>>>> Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
>>>> said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
>>>> country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
>>>> but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.
>>
>>> Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
>>> known whom he was.
>>
>>> If France wants to promote peace, I'd have been a lot more impressed if
>>> the anti-English hatred hadn't re-asserted itself with the UK's
>>> withdrawal from the European Union and new impositions of trade
>>> restrictions. Gee. How can that possibly go wrong?
>>
>>> Please don't promote speech restrictions in the cause of peace.
>>
>> Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those in
>> power restrict speech.
>>
>> Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
>> currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn, and
>> suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.
>
>They don't even think about it. They think it will keep them
>in power or influence.
>
>> It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
>> the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
>> <insert issue here>.
>
>I agree with you.
>
>But you also have this kind of person in the USA, don't you?
>I think of the "woke" or the cancel culture followers.

Alas, yes we do. It's the anti-woke too. Two months ago, presidential
candidate Nikki Haley -- a religious conservative -- stated that she
opposed anymous speech on Web forums and would regulate it to prohibit
it. That's contrary to the First Amendment.

On 27/02/24 17:00, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> You fail to understand the basic principle of Usenet: News administrators
> run Usenet. The issuer of the cancel message does not run Usenet.

That's right, my little sugar dumpling. You don't get to run Usenet by
sending cancel messages, cupcake.

> As llp pointed out, it may not be a best practice given that the
> mechanism isn't set up to verify the canceller's identity. Regardless,
> it's possible to act upon these cancels. >
> This is how Usenet works. It's never illegitimate to send a control
> message.

You already gave me permission to run a bot that cancels all your
messages, cutiepeach, so you don't need to repeat it, unless you are
trying to remind me to get around to it, buttercup?

On 27/02/24 17:59, Ray Banana wrote:
> Thus spake "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
>
>> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?
>> I'm a user on news.eternal-september.org. I would never ask Ray to
>> refuse to accept posts originating at Dizum. Nor would Ray do so.
>
> And immibis is using E-S, too. Just saying ...
>

Oh hey, Ray. Since this user believes (<url0v6$39kqa$1@dont-email.me>)
it's fine for anyone to post cancels of any message for any reason,
since he trusts servers to ignore them, will it bother you too much if I
automatically post cancels to all of his messages?

Does the E-S server propagate them even though it doesn't process them
as cancels itself?

On 28/02/24 01:05, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg:
>
>>>> This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved differently
>>>> than Big8 usenet.
>
>>> It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
>>> usenet" have to do with anything?
>
>> You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
>> an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
>> public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
>> on this kind of things.
>
> I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
> lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
> have kept my family alive.

Counterspeech hasn't prevented America from inching ever closer towards
committing some atrocity of comparable magnitude, either.

On 28/02/24 15:21, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17:
>
>>>> You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
>>>> an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
>>>> public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
>>>> on this kind of things.
>
>>> I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
>>> lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
>>> have kept my family alive.
>
>> I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
>> Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
>> said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
>> country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
>> but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.
>
> Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
> known whom he was.

That's exactly Eric's point. Counterspeech didn't stop Hitler.

On 28/02/24 16:02, Retro Guy wrote:
> Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those in
> power restrict speech.
>
> Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
> currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn, and
> suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.

When evil people are in power, they're going to restrict speech just as
well no matter whether you restricted them from speaking when they
weren't in power or not.

> It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
> the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
> <insert issue here>.

Maybe your refusal to accept their opinion just indicates closedmindedness.

On 28/02/24 18:54, Retro Guy wrote:
> Eric M wrote:
>
>> Le 28/02/2024 à 16:02, Retro Guy a écrit :
>
>>> It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
>>> the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course
>>> for <insert issue here>.
>
>> It's difficult because your country is doing this :
>
>> <https://observer.com/2022/02/book-banning-is-increasing-across-the-united-states-a-book-burning-in-tennessee/>
>
>> So free speech for who ? :)
>
> I agree that this is an issue. Most of what is reported as book
> "banning" in the U.S. currently is removing books from schools. The
> books are still available to
> purchase or read.
>
> Seeing what you link to supports the idea of, "What happens when the
> other side
> controls speech?"
> The U.S. is by no means going the right direction, but fortunately it's
> more difficult
> to legislate against free speech than it is in many countries.

They don't seem to be having any problem with it. They can't pass a law
saying a certain book is illegal, but they have no problem passing laws
preventing the book from even being mentioned in places where people
might learn of its existence.