At The Hill.com: “The slippery slope of trying to curb ‘extremist’ speech”

“…the concept of “extremism” is highly subjective and malleable. Policies attempting to ban “extreme” speech will almost always lead to censorship. Even if it stems from good intentions, any effort to ban speech will be infected with bias.” B-I-N-G-O.

Who gets to decide…what if their bias isn’t your bias? Good questions, no easy answer.

BlueCollar suggests the real problem is the premise that ‘free speech’ is somehow a causal link to INEVITABLE violence…free speech is never justification for violence.

The underlying problem is that, to silence opposition, many make such claims…and those inflicting violence, to avoid responsibility, rush to hide behind such rationales.

Arguers will always feed off the violence to shut their opposition down; it’s a vicious cycle that – at the least, is convenient – and at worst, in some instances…intentional.

When the extremists stop justifying violence in such a manner, violence has no veil.

(But don’t expect them to stop feeding off this vicious cycle any time soon.)