I'm not talking about that here - and that always fell under protecting voice - if mistakes were made they should have been reversed on appeal. e.g. imagery of healed scars in the context of recovery, discussions of struggles with mental health, suicidal ideation etc.
I'm talking about graphic images of self harm, suicide, eating disorders. And at some point you have to weigh the maximalist interpretation of free speech "you have to host whatever I want, as long as it's not illegal" with "promoting this stuff causes active harm, no".
>And at some point you have to weigh the maximalist interpretation of free speech "you have to host whatever I want, as long as it's not illegal" with "promoting this stuff causes active harm, no".
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it causes such harm.
I don't generally think people should be held responsible for the unintended reaction to their speech of a small minority of the audience.
Having a piece of content removed, or demoted and not recommended, is being held responsible?
Also as per the inquest into the death of Molly Russel found based on the preponderance of evidence, exposure to this kind of graphic content was largely the causative agent in her suicide.
What would the bar you require be, is there a bar?
I'm talking about graphic images of self harm, suicide, eating disorders. And at some point you have to weigh the maximalist interpretation of free speech "you have to host whatever I want, as long as it's not illegal" with "promoting this stuff causes active harm, no".