I will try to “couch” this idebate in more neutral terms than the previous attempt. Yet another attempt at establishing a control was criticized for not providing adequate context of the speech in question. Provide context and of course, the discusiion then becomes personal. As I have thought, there is no settling such a debate.
I would however, like to solicit the opinions of this board on three cases.
Do these cases represent a trend of speech supression ? The “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case was quickly used as precedent in the case of Rachel Boim, going outside of the narrow drug reference outline of the SCOTUS majority. How far will that decision be stretched ? In the case of Jack McClellan, a man with no criminal history has been punished for thoughts he admitted to. Is this action reasonable ?