Comment by ajuc
9 years ago
> "Unless you agree with my radical leftist agenda you are a nazi/racist/<some_imaginary_word>"
Calling for persecution of literal inciting of violence is hardly a "extremist left" idea. In fact it's not even left-or-right issue.
The problem is for the most part very few (no?) people are calling for explicit violence, even really abstract violence. Calling for muslim bans, border walls, deportation of illegal or even legal immigrants, restricting immigration to "white" countries and honouring racist war "heroes" are all abhorrent and racist views, but they are all clearly not inciting violence in any way.
How do you restrict the speech of people who advocate for white supremacy in non-violent ways? You could specifically ban white supremacy, but such a narrowly targeted law would probably lead to more radicalization.
Inciting violence is already illegal and no one is defending it.
Just like the right to free speech is useless without a spirit of tolerance in the population, the same goes for inciting violence being illegal.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/charlottesv...
Why does this story about CF dropping the Daily Stormer have not simply one comment saying "Good."? Why is there even a discussion? No one is defending it explicitly, but many do implicitly.
Because you can't operate systems as big as the internet on a case by case basis. People are concerned that this action could lead to other, more noble, speech being suppressed by corporations like cloudflare.
I'm happy they're offline for the moment, but I wish it was because of a court order focused on specific actions (eg incitement of specific violence) rather than a single person's disapproval of their (really quite terrible) message.
3 replies →