doubleshame

I agree, so take action against that specific man, and take action because he was responsible for an act of violence.

If ten people standing in a row have an idea, you cannot destroy the idea by shooting all of them in the head.

If one of them causes violence, you should not shoot all of them in retaliation.

What would be your judgement if this radical group was just sitting away in their homes typing out blog posts? Would you still censor them?

Thanks for these choice quotes.

I completely agree for the need for boundaries, but I think we've done a most excellent job of setting them!

The current boundary is speech that immediately incites violence, I believe the supreme court interpretation has been very generous towards the notion of free speech, including hate speech, as it should be!

Here's why:

We should let the radicals be racist and make radical statements as much as they want. At the point at which they turn violent or call for specific acts of violence we should step in and shut that stuff down.

A blanket militant action against the whole ideology will no doubt show better results on shutting down the movement on a short term.

But the notion of freedom of speech is not meant to protect these radicals, it is meant to protect ourselves and the integrity of society! We cannot make exceptions to these rules just because it's more convenient to us now, because this weakens the principle. This is the whole slippery slope argument.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

If you wish to change the lines on which we use force, you must make a coherent case based on principle, not on convenience or anecdotes, as the principles themselves already account for, in a deep way, the history to which you allude.

This is where the analogy breaks down though. If we reach a place where the internet itself is fragmented, then I will no longer be able to access trash like the Daily Stormer, and the child of a radical will no longer be able to access the content that I see.

At this point, the wall will be too high to effectively toss education / ideas over, the internet being the primary form of communication.

> engaging, at all, legitimizes the notion that this type of idea is up for debate. It's not.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

All ideas are up for debate.

> shifting the window of acceptable rhetoric

I agree

> ignoring their offered ideas and debate

This has no bearing on the people whose ideas you are ignoring, it merely reinforces the notion of an acceptable idea within the already existing good-idea-population. So no.

> they will be hurt, there will be violence, and nobody will be sympathetic

So, espousing violence against a group of people. Here the group of people are defined by the fact that they use violence to achieve their means.

Surely, you are not defining this group by their beliefs of racial superiority, as you would not say the same thing if they were merely writing nonviolent blog posts, would you?

* Your anger and hatred have led you to become the very thing that you set out to hate. *

You should be very scared of the world you're creating. I know I am.

Let's say you're right.

I'd think that isolating this group is a poor strategy.

Look at terrorist camps in Pakistan where children are indoctrinated from a young age with radical ideas.

Is the solution here to build a wall or to improve education and spread new ideas?

The truth is that you can never build a high enough wall.

"We often meet our destiny on the road we take to avoid it."

We are NOT fighting the people here, we're fighting the ideas. I don't think we should ever forget this.

Sure, fire is good when you're dealing with them roaches, but kill them as you will, does nothing for the ideas, which sunlight is good for.

Yes, the US actually does have excellent lines on what's acceptable speech. In my not-professional judgement, it's speech that is the proximate cause of violence and incites it, and the daily stormer is outside of that. If you're talking about the US, you'd let the courts decide, and not corporations.

It is very important to distinguish something like Facebook blocking an account / Medium taking down a blog from a domain registrar refusing to cooperate.

You are free to create a room where only some ideologies are allowed, but it's dangerous to play the same game with the ability to create the rooms.

First the domain registrars, then networks say that they don't want to peer, and then we end up with a fragmented internet, cutting off all communication.

It is not wise to pretend that an opinion that you do not want just simply does not exist. The extremist in the room who everybody pretends is not there, is eventually going to do more radical things to be noticed. In the echo chamber of extremism, there is now no moderating thought; and the world loses empathy to understand these unpopular perspectives that still exist.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant"

"Isolation only promotes extremism"

Is this a reliable source?

It is very important to distinguish something like Facebook blocking an account / Medium taking down a blog from a domain registrar refusing to cooperate.

You are free to create a room where only some ideologies are allowed, but it's dangerous to play the same game with the ability to create the rooms.

First the domain registrars, then networks say that they don't want to peer, and then we end up with a fragmented internet.

It is not wise to pretend that an opinion that you do not want just simply does not exist. The extremist in the room who everybody pretends is not there, is eventually going to do more radical things to be noticed. In the echo chamber of extremism, there is now no moderating thought; and the world loses empathy to understand these unpopular perspectives that still exist.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant"

"Isolation only promotes extremism"