The value of free speech lies in the ability to get to the truth even when it is uncomfortable. The importance of a nationalist or far right subforum is in recognising that the members who want it should not be silenced or intimidated into conformity because we find their views to be objectionable. If they are not true we should not be afriad of them because they will lose in a fair debate. The fear of such opinions shows our weakness and our cowardice rather than our strength. Free speech is free speech for all opinions that do not incite violence and directly cause harm. It is a right that belongs to the individual and is not a privallage granted to a person by either a state, a democracy or a higher authority (in this case, the staff).
The problem with this position is that it assumes far-right points of view are open to criticism, reconsideration & alteration in the light of rational dialogue. They aren't. This is why far-right regimes always silence their detractors & dissenters violently: they can't handle facts. If the far-right denies freedom of speech to others out of hand then it should itself suffer the same fate. Turnabout is fair play.
And I don't oppose granting free speech to far-right activists out of cowardice or weakness; more out of a desire to not have to live through the modern equivalent of Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. I resent your implication. Allowing the far-right to become mainstream in society has had horrific consequences in every instance and as a minority which would in all likelihood be targeted as a result of that, I refuse to sit back and allow such evil to operate unchallenged or unchecked.
Free speech is not absolute and never has been. There are reasonable restrictions such as advocating violence etc which far-right ideology falls under. The fact that ******** like Spencer (who calls for a '"peaceful" ethnic cleansing of black people') are inserting the word 'peaceful' into their ideas does not make them such. What if he called for the 'tolerant' incarceration of everyone to the left of him? Would you support that?
Doesn't this tell you something? That it's more popular than the narrative would have you believe?
I also think the view that the left has that the right 'hates' gays is wrong. You know I don't hate anybody; there are gays on the right themselves. Just because we view something as abnormal, doesn't mean we hate it.
But you do view it as unnatural which you view as reason enough to restrict their rights. If you view something as unnatural it's far easier to dehumanise those who engage in it. To draw an analogy you'll understand quickly: in this scenario you wouldn't be an Islamic State supporter, you'd be a 'moderate' Muslim who believes the Charlie Hebdo massacre was justified.
But then why have a Communist section? Commies have been brutal b******s too who genocided millions upon millions. Yet a member can openly label him or herself a Communist and sport a Stalin avatar. Bit lopsided, no?
Your point would be cogent if you can highlight a Marxist doctrine that calls for the mass murder of proletarians and the creation of thought police. Self-proclaimed communist governments have all been corruptions of actual Communist ideology. Fascist governments have not.