Yeah, and I'm not saying or implying that he's not in his right to think or say that, I'm just exercising my fucking right to respond to him and criticize his position with fundamentals. After all, by saying that something is intrinsically bad, you are at the same time making a normative statement about what you think it should be; and that normative statement something I disagree with because, if it is done and / or made law, it contravenes freedom of expression; and I can name examples of real life, such as my own country (Venezuela), or others like Argentina (both before Milei and with Milei), Russia, Ukraine, the United States, Canada, Australia, China, Spain, NorKorea, etc., where that, for having been included in the law, has caused very serious human rights problems. And I know it may seem like I'm doing a slippery slope fallacy, but no, because the problem is, who decides the cutting point? Who decides where the limits of what can and cannot be said? Any limit is arbitrary and as such any attempt to regulate it is also arbitrary and highly prone to totalitarianism, populism and chauvinism, just as in these countries (which, curiously, have also started with seemingly innocent things like this); think, it is the same as with the EU's anti-privacy movements; the declared objective is, in principle, commendable, but once they already have the legal infrastructure, they just have to change the objective to something absolutely unacceptable (like quiet dissidents) and we can do nothing. Like this or more fucking clear?