What a cop-out on the parts of the "freedom" defenders, to say "well I wouldn't buy it, but I'll defend the right to make it available."
Just to attempt to return the argument to the abstract rather than the more emotionally charged discussion, the description of the 'freedom defenders' is actually paraphrasing the ideal of a free society. One of the real difficulties of living in a society that is both free and functioning is that at a practical level we must all embrace hypocrisy at some level. I believe in a free society but also accept that censorship must protect the vulnerable. The difficulty of who decides and how is always problematic and the issue here is a demaraction problem - where is the line drawn at what is acceptable? Tour buses visit concentration camps, cigarettes are still freely available, boxing is an Olympic sport, the right to purchase an AK-47 - where is the line drawn is always an emotional point.
As an associated, though quite different point, as a newbie two things in these discussions always intrigue me:
1. The male abhorence of rape but our 'acceptance' of violence. Censorship of TV and movies have always been stricter on issues of sex than violence.
2. The repetitive discussions of the morality of certain toy soldiers against the background of complaints about rising prices brought on by Chinese factory workers who in their greedy view of the world aspire to the lifestyle that I take for granted.
I do suggest, respectfully, that the 'if the shoe fits' as a response to a calm and rational comment in a thread you started might, for me, have crossed the line. Again, that is me, and people are free to disagree.
For the record, however, I wouldn't buy the figure, wouldn't keep it if was given to me, wouldn't sell it and do not understand why someone would buy it.
But that's me!
Jack