This one was interesting if one sided. The basic theme was advocating book banning for cultures other than the speakers own. His conclusion was the opposite of several encountered through Wiki. It presented one viewpoint of many by a congressional panel. Without reading the book I can't recreate a First Amendment argument, so I can only judge the speaker by his absurd debating style.Guest wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 5:13 pmYou asked for it, you got it.
Just a small start.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMQAf5E8NFY
He started out by quoting the books out of context. In these books, you present what can go wrong as well as what can go right. He used what could go wrong to present the books as porn. This representation was the opposite of the other reviews I encountered. He then asked how the censorship problem could be solved, and spoke over the other speaker when he tried to answer, preventing the answer from being given, asking a new question before the old was answered, switching the targets of the new question to prevent the first from answering, and otherwise pretending that because he would not allow a question to be answered it could not be answered.
The biggest takeaway was to reinforce my support of Biden over this clown. If he was seriously interested in exotic sexuality and the First Amendment, he would allow people to describe how the problem is being addressed so he could tweak it.