Yes, I know it's awful. I am intolerant of those that would wish to impinge upon my freedom to read, watch, attend what I want.
So, let's say you want to read/watch child pornography by the thousands of images, etc. The govt. is thereby restrictive to impose that censorship upon you were they to prosecute you, or, does, yes, the light turn on in your head that some forms of censorship are ones you readily consent to?
If this is your universal truism, under what circumstances do you cave in and say, "Well, I guess my worldview is not true across the board--at least in many circumstances it just doesn't hold up no matter how quickly I quaintly quote it."
Let's say, you want to attend a tourism event now labeled child sexual tourism, where folks go to a different country simply to engage in child sexuality. Is that, too, is something you're intolerant of re: the govt. because they now have laws vs. child sexual tourism?
Do you see how silly it is to make open-ended statements like yours and think that they are somehow universal truisms & principles that all folks should buy into? That's the problem when you make up ethics as you go along. Folks, upon jettisoning strong moral standards, absolutes and ethics, have nothing left to grab onto in the new moral vacuum. Instead, they grasp any subjective conviction that manages to stay with them longer than a few days.
The problem is that you find out it's not a universal code when you start applying it to certain situations. It doesn't hold true across the board. It then becomes just another handy-dandy pocket slogan that might be true for you today, but not tomorrow.
Such is the life of a relavist. No real foundation.