[TITLE] "No Offense" Is No Longer A Good Defense
[DESCRIPTION] A rather bizarre video has made the rounds on the internet; depicting a housepet performing tricks in response to unsavoury offensive terms and phrases. The words, which the pet was trained to recognize as cues, has been described as brutish, inflammatory, and extremely offensive by @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@, with many reportedly upset. This has culminated in a contingent of your administration staff bursting through your door during an afternoon break for an impromptu meeting on the matter.
[VALIDITY] Would not be valid in nations that have extensive/high levels of animal rights, are not permissive of free speech & expression and/or have banned/heavily regulated electronics/computers/the Internet nationwide, as these would prevent the actions depicted by the issue from happening in the first place.
[OPTION 1] Your Minister of Culture and Internet Frivolities immediately takes the floor, their burrow furrowed while thrusting their phone into your face to present the material in question to you. "This is unacceptable!" yelling angrily as the video plays mere inches from your nose, "We can't have @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ putting this kind of hateful media on the internet, we must impose strict regulations on these websites so that they can't host this disgustingly offensive content!"
[EFFECT 1] even so much as a schoolyard insult is grounds for having your entire online presence suspended.
[OPTION 2] @@RANDOMNAME@@, A prominent lawyer, stands beside the minister and shakes @@HIS_2@@ head while looking over a list of what you can only assume are infractions, peppered with colourful highlights. "That's not good enough. That pet was clearly being used as a smokescreen to propagate hateful sentiment; Even if these people are barred from the internet, they would still continue this in private or even out on the streets! We should make it a criminal offence to upload material like this on the internet, so that no subversive @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ fascist can spread their message without facing jail time."
[EFFECT 2] an increasing amount of inmates claim to be in prison for 'just joking about'.
[OPTION 3] "Surely you're both overreacting here?" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, head of the People's Freedoms Department, as @@HE@@ pries the furious MoCaIF away from your desk. "The guy was clearly messing around. That doesn't exactly warrant the law to come down on them like a ton of bricks. If anything, we should be encouraging people to speak their mind! The idea of policing 'hateful content' on the internet is frankly just absurd and really, we should be removing any restrictions on what people can say and do on it."
[EFFECT 3] makeup videos are being overtaken and overshadowed by the rising quantity of 'edgy jokes'.
[OPTION 4] Obscuring the @@ANIMAL@@-themed desktop wallpaper on your computer, a video message suddenly pops up from @@RANDOMNAME@@; the owner of the video sharing platform MyFace, where the offending video was posted. "I think everyone seems to have forgotten that MyFace is a private company, not a public platform. There shouldn't be any outside policing. Besides - We already have our own rules, so just let us enforce them without you government bumpkins getting in our way."
[EFFECT 4] the virtual kingdoms of social media are becoming increasingly stringent with what you can do on your digital soapbox.
I'd appreciate any feedback you might have for this idea, if at all. Thanks!
EDIT: I've been informed that this issue is strikingly similar to issue #832 (and additionally, issue #540), so that's my fault for not looking hard enough. If we agree that there's enough variation to differentiate it enough from those issues, then I would of course continue the drafting process.
