Civil libertarian: Support The categorical prohibition of any nonviolent means of expression inevitably poisons a society’s intellectual atmosphere. ██████████ █████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████████ ███ ███ ████████ █ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████
██████████ █████████ ████████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ █████ ████ ███████████ ███████████ █████████ ████
The civil libertarian argues that, since prohibiting any nonviolent means of expression will "poison" a society's intellectual atmosphere, anyone advocating censorship of all potentially offensive art is advocating something harmful to society.
The censorship advocate rejects the civil libertarian's argument on the basis that "many people" agree about what counts as "potentially offensive art."
The censorship advocate claims the civil libertarian is wrong: i.e., those advocating censorship of all potentially offensive art are not pursuing a course harmful to society. But the censorship advocate doesn't actually respond to the premise the civil libertarian provides, namely, that categorically prohibiting any nonviolent means of expression inevitably poisons a society's intellectual atmosphere. If this is true, then it doesn't matter whether or not many people agree about what counts as offensive art. So the censorship advocate's failure to respond to the reason given by the civil libertarian is a major flaw in his response.
The censorship advocate’s rebuttal is ██████ ███████ ██
attempts to extract █ ███████ ████ ████ █ ████████ ████
extracts an erroneous █████████ ████ █ ████████ ████ ██████
attacks the civil ███████████████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████
relies on an ██████████ ██████ ███ █████████ ███ █████ ███████████████ ████████
uses hyperbolic, inflammatory ████████ ████ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ████