• webadict@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    It is arbitrary.

    It’s not illegal to depict incest, the same as it is not illegal to depict many types of acts that many would consider immoral or even acts that are explicitly illegal, like bestiality, necrophilia, or rape. There might be an argument for regulating content that depicts illegal acts on the grounds that it normalizes or potentially glorifies these acts, but that isn’t likely the reason for this. I think it is mostly a corporate choice and partially a legal issue.

    I am against this partially because it is arbitrary but mostly because I don’t like a precedent set towards banning things on moral grounds.

    • slackassassin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I can’t wait for nazi rapists are cool 4, everyone should have to host it and support its financial transactions.

      • webadict@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Right, that would be you arguing moral grounds. If you were to argue that Nazis are covered under hate speech, that is fine because hate speech is illegal. There’s the difference, right? Depicting Nazis isn’t illegal (in most places), and could be allowed, but hate speech is illegal.