> The alternative is to let no-nazis, white supremacists publish articles unfettered about the evils and inferiorities of Blacks and Jews so they can win supporters

Then let them. If you try and censor their views then you give them credibility and people think "well there must be something to this ideology if the establishment doesn't want me to access this information". Better to let them spout their nonsense for everyone to see, and then contrast it with a more logical position.

Of course blocking neo nazi trash doesn't "give them credibility"--that is a total non-sequitor.

I mean, are you saying that, if you personally knew neo-nazi stuff was suddenly being filtered out, you'd start to wonder if they were onto something good?

> I mean, are you saying that, if you personally knew neo-nazi stuff was suddenly being filtered out, you'd start to wonder if they were onto something good?

Absolutely I would. Even if I would not have looked at it before. If the powers that be were trying to keep information from me, I would very much like to know why.

Are you saying that if chunks of the internet were purged, and public figures were blacklisted, you would just be ok with that? If anything, I would go out of my way to seek out what is being kept from me.

What if your blog were blacklisted, because you were accused of being a "Nazi". Do you just think that people would listen to you if you swore that there had been a mistake? Why?

>What if your blog were blacklisted, because you were accused of being a "Nazi"

Why is the assumption always made that censorship will be applied in this crazy random arbitrary fashion. Is there any evidence that censorship always happens that way and isnt properly targeted to actual hate speech.

This may affect legitimate speech isnt a very powerful argument because legitimate speech can be differentiated from hate speech. I can tell the difference between a neo-nazi and someone who is merely critical of Israels policies and I feel sorry for those who cant differentiate.

As for public figures, if there are public figures who are actively spreading hate speech, yes censor them too. I would not shed a tear if Don Black and stormfront were censored from the web. In fact I think it would make the world a better place to be rid of giving their toxic views a public platform.

>Of course blocking neo nazi trash doesn't "give them credibility"--that is a total non-sequitor.

Yeah, because fringe groups never got any gravitas from being persecuted (or perceived as persecuted).

In fact that's exactly what gave Hitler early publicity: his imprisonment after his failed coup -- which let him write a popular then book to detail his persecutions from the state and his "enemies".

Not more than they would if they weren't persecuted. I am certain neo-nazis would much prefer to spread their hate as publicly as possible through Sunday morning cartoons and flyers and ads, and the fact that we as a society have restricted them from doing so has weakened, not strengthened them.

Maybe some people find a morbid attracting to them as a result of them being forbidden just for this reason. But for the large majority, this has not happened.

I personally wouldn't, but the people most susceptible to buying into that kind of thing would.

>* The alternative is to let no-nazis, white supremacists publish articles unfettered about the evils and inferiorities of Blacks and Jews so they can win supporters. To let people publish rape fantasies about women and children. To post terrorist recruitment videos. And to have impressionable teens and children exposed to that garbage.*

So the alternative is free speech? And we should "think of the children"?

It's almost childish the way certain people seem to think the words "free speech" constitute an argument in themselves. Videos of child rape "free speech", watching people be tortured for fun "free speech." Showing minors porn "free speech. ISIS recruitment videos aimed at teenagers "free speech."

Merely attaching the words free speech to something doesn't automatically make it okay.

It's almost childish how people use the same tired arguments about fringe activities that maybe 0.001% of the population enjoys (like minor porn) and which are violations of the law in their own right to do anyway, as examples of why we should censor speech and videos.

There's a law to take down child porn already -- we're not discussing that, and we don't need an extra law with vague and unrelated powers to censor stuff, to tackle that.

>It's almost childish how people use the same tired arguments about fringe activities

Fringe activities exactly what we are talking about censoring. Google is not talking about censoring eveyrday speech, they're talking about targeting and getting rid of the fringe activities like hate speech.

Nobody is advocating preventing ordinary discourse like criticizing Trump or being pro Trump etc. They are talking about getting rid of speech like neo nazi speech, terrorist recruitment speech, child endangerment/exploitation speech.