">Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. You're only making an assertion. * If I do A, it means that I have the desire to do A. * If I have the desire to do A, it means that I consider this desire good to have (or else I would have discarded it) * If the desire to A is good to have, then anyone should be allowed to have this desire. * I do A. * Therefore anyone is allowed to have the desire to do A. >It all depends on what "legal banning" means. I can think of many ways in which banning public displays of fascism can be enforceable by the population as a whole. In this case I meant laws made by a centralized government. >What about "mutual aid" to "legally ban" fascist discourse from the public space? What would that lead to? It would lead to people considering good to publicly pressure free speech they do not like out of the public sphere. That would lead to the public feeling ok to force any majority view they are uncomfortable with to silence, therefore stiffing critical..." - Divided By Zer0