• testfactor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I can see both sides on this one I think?

    Out of curiosity, would you feel differently about this if it had been a print newsletter or physical book publisher that was printing Nazi propaganda that got shutdown because they refused to stop printing Nazi propaganda?

    If so, what’s the substantive difference? If not, are you affirming banning people from publishing books based on ideological grounds?

    Obviously banning books is bad, but obviously Nazis are bad, and that’s a hard square to circle.

    • Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s a nice hypothetical but the facts of this case are much simpler. Would you agree that a country is sovereign, and entitled to write its own laws? Would you agree that a company has to abide by a country’s laws if it wants to operate there? Even an American company? Even if it is owned by a billionaire celebrity?