So the real question in the article boils down to a moral dilema: Should a government ban ideologies which it considers could lead to detrimental outcomes for society, when said ideologies do not directly cause physical damage on anyone or thing?<p>I think the critical part of that question is how you define goverment.<p>If you believe governments are ligitimate non-corrupt institutions that are representative of the people and have the citizens - and all the citizens - best interests at heart, then you will likely think banning &quot;bad&quot; ideologies is a good idea. If your thoughts towards government move in more negative directions i.e. you cannot trust the government&#x27;s moral judgements of right and wrong - you&#x27;ll likely be against the general case of banning ideas.<p>Historically speaking governments seem to do very poorly at separating good ideologies from bad ones - i.e. Nazis entartete Kunst, various banned books such as Animal Farm in the USSR. A scroll down the list of banned books (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_books_banned_by_governments" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_books_banned_by_govern...</a>) reveals this fact.<p>I&#x27;m sure there are other interesting pros&#x2F;cons to this question, anyone else care to give a try?