So intimidation and threats of violence are ok? Are you really commending these people for their restraint in not using AK-47s at a demonstration?

One of the lessons from the first round of Nazis is that, by the time the threatening talk turns to actual large-scale violence, it's too late. When Hitler got out of prison in 1924, he made sure that he would be seen as an "all talk" kind of guy by those who could have shut him down.

Freedom of speech (and in fact a lot of the Constitution) is constructed to curtail governmental powers so that dangerous groups in charge aren't able to fundamentally re-shape the country. Why would you want to undermine that when the country is arguably very close to being in that position?

(Personally I think CloudFlare is within its rights to fire a client it doesn't like; non-governmental entities don't have first amendment obligations, just a requirement not to break certain class-based discrimination laws. I don't know if neo-Nazis are a protected class in that respect but it's difficult to see how they would be, since they are not a political party or recognized minority group.)

edit: parentheses

The freedom of speech thing matters not one bit to the alt-right and the Nazis longer than it takes them to overthrow the present order, after that it will go out the window very quickly.

Democracy can be destroyed, it has happened before and it likely will happen again, there is absolutely no reason to believe that it could not happen in America.

Anyway, this whole discussion isn't about free speech to begin with, it is about hate speech and inciting to violence.

I agree that there is no reason why such destruction could not happen here. That is why I believe it is particularly important not to argue for narrow exemptions to important constitutional protections on the grounds of a perceived acute threat. Those protections are shields against the kind of 'democracide' that we may face, so why would we take them apart ourselves?

Furthermore, I think we're safer for having these Nazis out in the open. Their ideas are more easily ridiculed; they are denied the romantic attraction of being driven underground; and their members are more easily monitored (and infiltrated) by the FBI such that any planned atrocities are more readily stopped. They are not an existential threat to the republic, rather, a tiny minority of dangerous people who need to be monitored and arrested whenever they break a law.

[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

Maybe you would like to update it to present day knowledge?

You see Wednesday as a sign of an emboldened neo-Nazi movement, an indication of a growing threat, a sign that a formerly dormant group has begun taking direct action.

I see it as a new national awareness of a group of people who have been here all along, a desperately sad act of murder by a damaged man, and a discredited and clumsy president managing to align himself publicly with an evil ideology decried by everyone except those same neo Nazis.

And you're advocating for, well, I'm not actually sure, but some sort of legislative change to tackle the threat you perceive because you believe it will make us safer. I'm pushing for the opposite, because I believe that your way will drive dangerous people further into the shadows while undermining those defenses we talked about above.

Probably there is a middle way, maybe involving using existing laws such as those used to combat gangs to break apart specific groups of neo Nazis, or quietly increasing the funding of those parts of the FBI which are responsible for domestic extremism.

Probably I am wrong and you are right. I do not think I can convince you, but perhaps you can convince me.

No, I'm not advocating for that at all.

For the rest I would class your assessment as 'mostly accurate', but the devil is in the details.

If you would like to take this off-line I'd be more than happy to converse with you, [email protected].

Well, your theoretical beliefs are now put to a much more practical test, sympathizing with the Nazis in any way shape or form, even if it comes down to just sympathizing with their 'right to a platform' is an excellent way to see how strong ones beliefs really are.

If this is the first time you are in a situation where your strongly held principles are put to the test then I sympathize with you, the longer you live the more this will happen and the more likely you will end up in a situation where there is a conflict between a strongly held belief and a negative consequence for yourself.

Note that bringing weapons (loaded or not) to a march sends a message: we're an army, and we're armed. Not using those weapons should not get them points. One of them brought his car and did use it, the damage was as bad or even worse as if he had fired a rifle.

> The Nazis are not reviled today because they had disgusting beliefs. They're reviled because they actually murdered millions of innocent citizens.

And they would do so again in a heartbeat if they knew they could get away with it.

> I'm okay with neonazis saying disgusting things, as long as they play by the rules and don't commit any violence. (Hell, people brought AK-47's and AR-15's to Charlottesville but didn't use them, despite the violent clashes.) Whatever happened to "sticks and stones"? Do kids not learn that mantra anymore?

Neo Nazis only say disgusting things because they know they are still living in a society where they can not get away with doing more but make no mistake, the overthrowing of that very society is their goal and I'd love to see you arguing for 'free speech' in the society that they wish to create.

You'd be up against the wall faster than you can say 'jack shit'.

And they'll gag be back up by tomorrow no doubt. "Hell, people brought AK-47's and AR-15's to Charlottesville but didn't use them, despite the violent clashes." What restraint.

So people should be allowed to say anything? So you can organize any imaginable crime, threaten people and promote false information as long as you don't do any physical harm?

I agree that just objecting Cloudflare's decision doesn't make you anything. One being a potential Nazi sympathizer just because they don't see any limits to where free speech ends can just be a very crazy conspiracy theory - nothing else.

Free speech does not protect dangerous speech.

Here's a quick and current take on the issue from Eugene Volokh: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

Sufficiently dangerous speech is not protected (Schenck v. United States, Dennis v. United States). Whether or not this speech was sufficiently dangerous is a matter of debate, but the comment you're replying to is correct.

'Fighting words' as defined by the courts is a very very narrow definition, however, and I've seen a lot of really naive comments referrencing that exemption.

I think it's important to point out that almost every time you think speech is 'fighting words', it's not.

This has been proven in the courts over and over. If some idea or words really anger or disgust you, I can almost guarantee that it's protected speech.

'Kill all the <insert chosen group>' is not.

'Kill those <specific bunch of persons> over there right now' is... probably...maybe.

It's doubtful that the case would even be decided the same way today.

It's true that the definition of 'fighting words' has narrowed considerably over the years, but the Chaplinsky case is foundational to the debate on what counts as free speech and has weighed heavily on subsequent judgments.

It's been nothing but a hypothetical argument from the grab-bag of people looking to silence speech they don't agree with by people who write newspaper op-eds. It's never actually been used to deny anyone freedom of speech.

If I'm wrong, then cite its use.

This type of psychological attack is precisely the issue at hand with counter-nazi progress online at this precise moment in time.

Dr. King himself was labeled as "the most dangerous Negro of the future in this Nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro and national security"

Which is why it is important to have equality of speech.

"Slippery slope" is a poor analogy for restricting speech. A more accurate analogy would be a double edged sword which cuts both ways.

You can keep saying that it will be applied to both good and evil until you're blue in the face but it won't make it fact.

If we allow the government to punish people for rape, next thing you know they'll be punishing people for consensual sex. It's a double edged sword.

That's really how ridiculous the argument sounds.

>You can keep saying that it will be applied to both good and evil until you're blue in the face but it won't make it fact.

How are you so sure corporate censorship can never be used for malicious purposes?

Was the war in Iraq a good thing? Because MSNBC censorsed/fired their popular TV host Phil Donahue for questioning it.

It truly is to me as well. It's something you expect nazis to say.

Imagine if the comment was

"The idea that I'm seeing any of these comments arguing to the contrary means HN is already infiltrated by israel and other jewish sympathizing groups."

It's a form of intimidation to silence groups one disagrees with. I can't believe his comment is the most upvoted on HN of all places.

All the pro-censorship people here are behaving no differently than the neo-nazis they claim to hate. Not only that, both groups share the hatred of free speech and the principles which kept the US from being a nazi germany.

Everyone here is forgetting that Nazi Germany happened because germans supported censorship. Censorship allowed a minority group like the nazis to take over the government and silence everyone else. If the germans had an appreciation for free speech back then nazi germany would have been impossible since most germans opposed hitler and the nazi party. Nazi germany happened because of censorship laws which allowed hitler to ban all political parties and all speech he disagreed with.

But nobody learns history or philosophy anymore it seems.

> Whatever happened to "sticks and stones"? Do kids not learn that mantra anymore?

It seems like kids are taking gender studies instead of philosophy and that is frightening. All the arguments are based on emotion rather than reason.

Would you please stop creating accounts to break the site guidelines like this?