But it is a natural consequence of the advocacy of censorship (e.g. antivax content). It's the "add one more thing" mentality that results in all sorts of fail (bloated software, cost overruns, erosion of personal freedoms). I think this law is setting a dangerous precedent.
I don't know of a better solution than using censorship sparingly. It's easy to support speech you agree with. It's the minority (in the numerical sense) speech that needs protection. For example, I may think antivax and homeopathy can be dangerous to society given the current COVID-19 situation, but I think censoring them is fundamentally more dangerous to society.
Not that I think this law is good legislation by a (Score:2)
I don't know of a better solution than using censorship sparingly. It's easy to support speech you agree with. It's the minority (in the numerical sense) speech that needs protection. For example, I may think antivax and homeopathy can be dangerous to society given the current COVID-19 situation, but I think censoring them is fundamentally more dangerous to society.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being daft. People have been trying to outlaw smut since long before the discovery of microscopic pathogens let alone vaccines.