How is it asinine? they both restrict speech and they both have no concept of "freedom of speech". The only difference is what they choose to censor.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy?wprov=sf...
European countries have their own dogmas and hypocrisy, only draw the line at different topics (especially where everyone had their grandparents traumatized in a war started by the Grok's favorite character).
None of the examples you gave are actually examples of speech being restricted. Its people (sometimes politicians) freely voicing their opinions on others speech, that is not restriction.
No.
They've taken the stance that parents get to decide what books their kids see.
Other parents are free to make a different decision.
Do you really think that there's a "right" to force others to read books that you choose?
So why draw the line at books depicting gay couples, rather than literally all books? Because this has nothing to do with the ban, except for being a “family-friendly” bullshit justification.
That's not how the Supreme Court works. They are selective about the cases they hear. Especially looking at a 6-3 ruling with this court it's clear to see this was an ideological selection.
Given that, it really does seem that the court ruled 6-3 in favor of the plaintiffs who are trying to draw a line around gay couples because the court is trying to draw a line around gay couples.
> Do you really think that there's a "right" to force others to read books that you choose?
Do I really think that public schools have a right to assign reading of certain books for classes? Is this even a real question? How do you think English classes work?
> Journalist posted a fake image online of the interior minister holding a sign that read “I hate freedom of opinion” and was subsequently handed a seven-month suspended prison sentence. A woman who posted images of politicians with painted-on Hitler mustaches and called a minister a terrorist was fined about $690.