Because if someone asserts something is not ok, the onus is on them to show why it is not ok. Otherwise, why not permit it?
In Egypt the indecency laws are as such:
It applies only to aggressive genital exposure with intent to shock those who want not to see the genitals. The maximum penalty is two years' imprisonment.
Nobody has to click, but that is not a valid argument against piracy, or child nudity etc. Again, not the same kinds of things I know, but the argument doesn't work as a solitary argument (not clicking).
Oh and I lied, those are not Egyptian laws, those are
OURS.
So...aggressive is wrong. On a scale of one to ten, was she aggressive or passive, one being passive, ten being militant.
It IS complicated, anyone simplifying it is not doing her any favours.
Yes, we get it. All others have simplicity of thought and intent in contrast to your own expansive, philosophical, questing integrity - which in an irony I'm sure you miss, always ends with labelling everyone else definitively in manners that are not just tu quoque but false too.
Nope, just you.
Note: I have no issues with her whatsoever, honestly don't care. I'm wondering though about her arguments, and the Muslim Brotherhoods, because clearly there is some bigger issue here that both her and they have missed or are unaware of.