You probably meant 1970s. Either way, that's a curious metric to decide what to ban. Why must we wait for tragedy to strike in order to act? And furthermore, why must this tragedy be recent, and how recent?

I say we decide first what kind of speech to ban (clear incitement to violence, for example, or something broader), and then proactively ban it to save lives.

There was a ton of marxism/communism related violence in the US in the 20's, mostly centered around labor strikes. In general, that period saw much more violence and instability than the 70s. There was a literal battle win West Virginia between striking miners and the government:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

> Why must we wait for tragedy to strike in order to act?

Actions of the government (or other actors WRT policy changes) are given legitimacy by serving as a response to perceived existing problems. In essence, if there is no tragedy, there is no legitimacy to the action. Without legitimacy, the policy change carries less weight and is not effective. This is a basic reality of policy implementation.

The actions of banning white nationalist speech on tech platforms are given legitimacy by the recent NZ shooting, where (1) the shooter made numerous callouts to the white nationalist subcultures that these platforms foster (subscribe to pewdiepie, etc) (2) The content the shooter generated and streamed spread widely across nearly all distribution channels (FB, youtube, reddit, etc) despite censorship efforts, (3) We know that wide distribution of the extremist type of content that this guy distributed (whether its white nationalist, ISIS, or anything) in his actions inspires more people to extremism.

The militant "left" was a real problem in the 70ies and had been so since early that century. Death toll: 10s of millions

Militant "right" is always a problem. Death toll: millions. Mostly "others" (jews, east Europeans, disabled people)

Militant "Muslims" are a problem in large parts of the world and has been so for centuries. Death toll: not sure. Ironically most Muslims lately.

And of course: militant "Christians" was a problem in certain centuries. Death toll: hundreds of thousands. Ironically mostly Christians?

I write "left" and "right" here because I find it unfair to blame concervatives and ordinary socialists for something that is more about being totalitarian than about more or less tax or ownership.

Same goes for religions to a certain degree (although there's no doubt that for example old Norse (viking) religion was very focused on war compared to Christianity).

Marxists have done enough harm thorough the history to justify ban. Stalin, Mao, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Khmer Rouge are just few examples off the top of my head. Just because they didn't do anything violent recently shouldn't mean they are allowed to spread their ideology.

Not sure we need to go full House of Un-American Activities for a threat that's largely subsided before the time of internet platforms. Your last sentence is phrased as some sort of absolute truth, but I wonder when you say: "they are allowed", I can't help but ask: "by whom"?

>I wonder when you say: "they are allowed", I can't help but ask: "by whom"?

The exact same people "not allowing" white nationalist content, of course.