Public nudity is not legal free speech. But is that because it is threatening?
Not threatening, but rather indecent. Key word is "public". When in public, it's safe to assume that children will almost always be seen, and they should not be exposed to overt nudity. Even still, people generally don't want to see nude bodies as they shop or commute to work. It's the same reason why defecating in public is illegal. No one is threatened, but it is indecent and inappropriate, and people don't want to see it. Just like (sane) people don't want to hear racial slurs and see extremist propaganda in public. It's inappropriate and should not be legal.
Why do you feel so sure of yourself to think banning specific slurs / ideologies (would love to see how you'd do that) would the best solution? When has that ever worked?
Because it would protect, which in turn would empower, marginalized groups, which have been put down by racism, anti-semitism/islam, and homophobia for generations. I feel as if this is being blown way out of proportion. All I'm saying is, racial slurs and extremist propaganda should be illegal. I'm not saying that discourse in general, and even controversial/taboo/false viewpoints (that are not threatening), should be jeopardized. As I assume no one in this thread uses racial slurs or is a Neo-nazi or something of the sort, I can't see how outlining and banning clearly hateful expression is so threatening. Doing this is not communism, it's not fascism, and it's not "the government just trying to take control". It's simply eliminating bigotry.
If harmful ideologies/extremist groups were banned from practicing these views in public, these groups would not exist in the first place, therefore they would not be defacing social justice protests and attacking, or even killing people in the streets. White supremacy, Neo-Nazism, and neo-confederatism, among other viewpoints of the such, should be banned and those who wish to showcase these views in public should be punished. Let's look at the Proud Boys and Identity Evropa, two examples of extremist hate groups that formed after Trump took office, and are popular enough to have an influence on American politics. These groups promote white supremacy, misogyny, anti-LGBT views, islamophobia, and peddles racist conspiracy theories such as "White Genocide". They also encourage rioting and political violence, often protesting social justice protests. These groups, in short, threaten marginalized people. What I'm saying is, if such groups were legally not allowed to exist, as showcasing these extreme views in public would be illegal, then they would not be able to cause violence and boast their bigotry. Therefore, social justice gatherings such as Black Lives Matter, Pride Month, the Womens' March, all of which represent and empower marginalized groups, would be able to spread activism without being threatened by bigots.
Such restrictions on hateful speech have worked in Sweden, for example. As many Muslim migrants continue to relocate to Sweden, Islamophobia has been rising. In Sweden, white Swedes are in power and the Muslim migrants are marginalized. These people, seeking a higher quality of life, should not be greeted with Islamophobia when they move to Sweden, which is why the Swedish government restricts Islamophobic speech and expression in public. This way, Muslims in Sweden are free to express their culture without bigotry interfering, and white Swedes will be more inclined to accept and embrace Muslims calling Sweden home.
