Was the guy allowed to actually answer?
What I saw was the a-hole chairman interrupting before Perez could get even a sentence out.
And as for my answer, I would want to qualify it considering how many people out there are already going to try to misrepresent my answer.
Because even though we DO NOT have any such laws, I have REPEATEDLY seen people on this board pretend we do.
Additionally, I have seen people try to EXEMPT themselves from EXISTING laws which should apply to EITHER "religion" or "non-religious" cases, pretending that just because it's "religion" that automatically gives it special status.
What the question SHOULD have involved is this:
"never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes
criticism against any religion?"
And my answer would be "yes. I would never entertain or advance such a proposal".
As to the question Perez actually got, I already explained a scenario where that SHOULD BE "no", but of course you don't want to address it.
"never" and "any" are too broad to just reference "speech".
Let's try a different tactic.
Wouldn't "criticism" be a better word to use here?
Do you disagree that the word "speech" is too broad? There are a variety of forms of currently illegal speech.