The far right is losing its ability to speak freely online. Should the left defend it?

[Mister Silver]

And then they'll whine about being victims when there's a huge rightist backlash.

It's not my fault that the right knows no other way to solve something than resorting to violence.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's not my fault that the right knows no other way to solve something than resorting to violence.

Oh, you mean like Marxists and Antifa with black bloc tactics where they're so cowardly they won't even show their faces?

 

[Rival]

It's not my fault that the right knows no other way to solve something than resorting to violence.

I'm not talking about violence. The rightist sentiment will explode into rallies, websites, movements, parties and elections the likes of which will make the left faint for shock.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not talking about violence. The rightist sentiment will explode into rallies, websites, movements, parties and elections.

Maybe there will finally appear one that I actually feel like joining. Or maybe I will start my own American Fascist movement. The time appears to close to right!

 

[Rival]

Maybe there will finally appear one that I actually feel like joining. Or maybe I will start my own American Fascist movement. The time appears to close to right!

Please tell me you're listening to Mein Teil too

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Please tell me you're listening to Mein Teil too

Now I am.

 

[Rival]

Excuse us while Frank and I rock out to the nonsense

 

[Twilight Hue]

I look at it this way:

This forum has rules against hate, correct? If someone hates on another person, that person gets reprimanded, warned, eventually banned if the hatefulness continues correct?

I see banning hate filled white nationalists forums from the internet as no different.

Another religious forum site that I was a member of had a Christian identity forum listed among its categories. It wasn't exactly popular for obvious reasons, and I didn't like or care for it personally, but it was a place that had been reserved for people who were like-minded to freely hold dialogue and conversations with each other on a multitude of topics and other people who would would inquire, as well as debate and critique. It was moderated of course to ensure things remain civil, as it should be, but just about anything was allowed as a topic.

I think problems start when when people start deciding just what another person should say or talk about according to their own particular guidelines of what's proper and acceptable.

I'm all for free speech, - even if I hate what they are saying, - however, - there is a difference between free speech which is defended by law, - and inciting a riot, or other hate crimes, which are against the law.

If they stepped over the line, - they should be taken down. If they didn't, - they should be able to defend themselves in court.

18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots

*

I agree with that, actually inciting a riot is a whole another kettle of fish.

I'm not sure what you mean by other hate crimes. Are you talking verbal or physical?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Basically in general if you run a company and you want to limit your services to a subset of people: that's your right.

However, what you cannot do, is say that your terms of services are "X", and then decide later to remove someone who hasn't violated their agreement with you.

If you agree to host a person's website with an agreement that doesn't specify that they can't use it for racist reasons, and then you revoke it after the fact, I don't see why a corporation should be given the liberty to suddenly remove users who aren't violating that corporation's policies.

At the very least, it's false advertising by saying this service is open to anyone, then deciding that retroactively it's not open to Nazis and terminating your services to them after you have already taken their money and come to an agreement with them.



The issue is bigger. Right now we've got deplatforming happening without violating a host's terms of service. Or hosts suddenly changing terms of service to enable them to deplatform.

Essentially its corporations saying they can do whatever they want, even if you have a virtual agreement with them and are following the rules laid out by their agreements. This is not a good thing, for anyone, unless we can get courts to actually uphold the terms of service for websites on behalf of the users.

Otherwise it allows corporate censorship for any reason at all, even if you haven't broken any of their rules. And that cannot be good in the long run, so why enable them to do it today against these reprehensible groups??

Basically if a corporation gives you an agreement and says "You can use this site or platform in exchange for this and following these rules" and you agree and abide by those rules, the corporation should be bound by them as well. It'd be akin to going to McDonalds, agreeing to pay $1 for a cheeseburger, and then, after eating the burger, being told that now the price of your meal was $50 and you had better pay up. Corporations should not be allowed to change the terms of their contracts on their users.

I can't imagine anyone thinking that would be a good idea in any other context.

Want to know what's interesting?

From the way that sounds, that is pretty much what's happening with YouTube right now as we speak. Headed from what I hear by a sjw group, and an automated algorithm.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't see what that has to do with what I said. I'm not defending white nationalist viewpoints. I despise most of them. I despise racial identity politics for the most part, anyway. I do people should allow to express them, though.

I agree, and even though you despise Milo I doubt very much you would call for him to be censored or imprisoned for being the troll that he is.

 

[sun rise]

This forum doesn't have rules against hate. There's plenty of hateful people here. There's even users that I hate (who I have on ignore). It has rules against trolling and uncivil behavior.

What if the white nationalist isn't hateful or doesn't express their views in a derogatory manner?

Personally as I wrote in an earlier thread hate speech is 'crying fire in a crowded theater'. Someone who does not engage in hate speech is to me not over the line and should be allowed to express opinions.

 

[Yerda]

What if the white nationalist isn't hateful or doesn't express their views in a derogatory manner?

What kind of material is on the Stormfront site? If they aren't calling for violence or attempting to circumvent the rights of others I'd fall on the side of allowing and protecting it. Are they arguing for discrimination or segregation or that kind of crap?

I'm not sure hateful or derogatory speech should be beyond the realm of tolerance (I should be allowed to ridicule white supremacists and their ideas). I'm no free speech fundamentalist but it seems the principles of tolerance and liberalism within the public sphere are at risk if we fail to defend the right to free speech.

 

[Rival]

What kind of material is on the Stormfront site? If they aren't calling for violence or attempting to circumvent the rights of others I'd fall on the side of allowing and protecting it. Are they arguing for discrimination or segregation or that kind of crap?

I'm not sure hateful or derogatory speech should be beyond the realm of tolerance (I should be allowed to ridicule white supremacists and their ideas). I'm no free speech fundamentalist but it seems the principles of tolerance and liberalism within the public sphere are at risk if we fail to defend the right to free speech.

Stormfront was such a mix but there were rules against calling for violence etc. The most common theme was 'separate but equal'.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I agree, and even though you despise Milo I doubt very much you would call for him to be censored or imprisoned for being the troll that he is.

I mostly hate Milo and think he crosses the line into harassment at times but I don't think he should be banned from public forums or locked up, no. He did get banned from Twitter and I support that as it was over his trolling and not because of his views. That's not the same as having an entire website blocked, anyway. If someone tried to ban his website or ban him from or otherwise stop from participating in a speaking engagement, I think that would be wrong and would argue in favor of his right to speech.

I even follow him on Facebook, where he behaves himself much better.

 

[sayak83]

"Free speech was the left’s rally cry. But the fate of the Daily Stormer, a hate site ‘kicked off the internet’, signals the increasing irrelevance of the first amendment"
The far right is losing its ability to speak freely online. Should the left defend it?

Great article.

I have no intention of defending either the far right or the far left whose ideological minions jointly killed, maimed, tortured or incarcerated millions and millions of people over the 20 th century. The complete eradication of both ideologies from the public square would be most welcome. Thus I endorse the actions of private internet companies in not allowing their services to be used for the projection of far right or far left ideologies in society.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I have no intention of defending either the far right or the far left whose ideological minions jointly killed, maimed, tortured or incarcerated millions and millions of people over the 20 th century. The complete eradication of both ideologies from the public square would be most welcome. Thus I endorse the actions of private internet companies in not allowing their services to be used for the projection of far right or far left ideologies in society.

So you suport suppressing viewpoints you find distasteful, even in public forums. So you don't believe in freedom of speech. Okay, then.

 

[David1967]

When your written manifesto encourages the murder of women and children as a political aim, I think it's safe to ban you.

I have no such manifesto. But often we see selective outrage.

 

[David1967]

Anticancer.E="Saint Frankenstein, post: 5300232, member: 36975"]Oh, you mean like Marxists and Antifa with black bloc tactics where they're so cowardly they won't even show their faces?[/QUOTE]

Antifa is no more than a group of thugs looking for any perceived reason to attack others and tear stuff up.

 

[sayak83]

So you suport suppressing viewpoints you find distasteful, even in public forums. So you don't believe in freedom of speech. Okay, then.

I don't see why other people would be obligated to assist one in disseminating views they strongly disagree with. A forum or a social media site is run by a group or a company. Why should they be obligated to allow their site to used to project ideologies they are strongly opposed to?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't see why other people would be obligated to assist one in disseminating views they strongly disagree with. A forum or a social media site is run by a group or a company. Why should they be obligated to allow their site to used to project ideologies they are strongly opposed to?

I'm more opposing your idea that ideas should be "eradicated from the public square". So certain people shouldn't have the right to speak their views at all, even in public?