No, democracies have to have limits what they tolerate. Killing civilians just because they have a certain religion is incompatible with western values. The limit should be too not be tolerant with people that are not willing to provide the same tolerance. By that standard celebrating the killing of civilians we shouldn't tolerate.

>Killing civilians just because they have a certain religion is incompatible with western values

Yes, israel (a literal ethnostate & theocracy) should stop killing civilians due to their religion.

> BasedAnon

> goyim

4chan /pol/ wants their neonazi talking points back.

Deriding them as 'neo-nazi' talking points doesn't change the fact that they form the theological basis for israel (which again, is an actual real life ethnostate) & general jewish sentiment towards non-jews.

That isn't what they banned, they banned pro Palestine demonstrations.

Not a mention of Hamas.

The problems were not the demonstrations, it was the barrage of death threats against Jews (inside France). Which were linked and exacerbated because of the demonstrations.

The demonstrations themselves are acceptable - but the linked death threats definitely aren't, and unfortunately the state apparatus is not set up to deal adequately with the latter.

Can you expand on how the death threats were linked to the protests?

I tend to think focusing on the threats themselves would be the better approach. Having trouble seeing how shutting down protest would help.

2 days ago in Australia the pro-palenstinian protestors were chanting gas the Jews.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/10/pro-palest...

Look at January 6th. Many people came to "peacefully protest" the election and got swept up in doing something they didn't expect to do.

I don't know if you can conclusively prove they were directly linked, but we've seen how online people get radicalized by finding a community that espouses abhorrent ideas and then go on to commit crimes in service of that community. Real life gatherings and protests can have the same radicalizing effect in certain cases. That's not to say all of them do - the ideology behind the protest matters.

I agree that focusing on death threats would be a better approach - the problem is that it's very hard to find perpetrators and very easy to commit. Deterrence doesn't scale in that case.

Palestine != Hamas

Yes, all the people who couldn't imagine the censorship being used against "their team," here it is. It always happens. Censorship is the tool of authoritarians. Fight it in every form.

Mirroring my comments elsewhere:

In an ideal world we would not have censorship, but people would be punished for death threats and violent action. However, most governments do not have the resources needed to enforce such punishment in the scale necessary (in these cases). When the need for that supercedes the capacity of the state to control it, the devil's bargain to censor speech instead.

Well. My team doesn't hold rallys where people yell to gas the jews after a major terrorist attack. So... It's not that I can't imagine it being used against me it's just that I don't do that anyway so not being allowed to do it isn't a loss.

There is violent rhetoric at all rallies related to this war, pro-Israel rallies included. Most people do not say such terrible things, some people do say them, and the opposition paints the whole rally as endorsing that stance. That’s the way it goes.

That is not what they banned, I strongly suspect that is already illegal.

Also, your "my team" take is bordering on, if not racist. There is no "other team", they are diverse individuals who have opinions that differ from yours.

Pretty sure with "my team," parent was talking American politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

Once a population is ok with censorship, they enable censorship, so eventually it will be a loss. That's what's happening right now.

I really doubt any pro-palestine activists were surprised by this one?

The tactic of contacting our employers expecting them to fire us is a couple decades old at least. We are routinely called anti-semites for condemning treatment of palestinians.

And in the US currently the right is the one with the book-banning campaign? Again idk really how you can paint this as a surprising twist lol. We all saw it coming.

Multiple governments have already come to feel that the sort of rhetoric that appears at these demonstrations, like chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, crosses the line into advocacy of genocide and are not mere opinions. Advocacy of genocide has been forbidden since long before COVID happened.

It’s important to remember that after the Holocaust, European nations have a special responsibility to the Jewish people, and therefore they often err on the side of caution in preventing that people from being targets of potentially genocidal rhetoric.

>It’s important to remember that after the Holocaust, European nations have a special responsibility to the Jewish people, and therefore they often errs on the side of caution in preventing that people from being targets of potentially genocidal rhetoric.

Oh bloody fucking rubbish. French courts let a guy off on murdering a French Jew, in France, because he had smoked marijuana beforehand.

Not exactly. The ruling is that he was mentally incapacitated and is now in a closed psychiatric hospital (from which he won't leave for a good amount of time).

You may like out not the idea of not putting in prison people who were not save at the moment of the event, or the way the qualifications are made but it has nothing to do with Jews in the case you mention.

> Advocacy of genocide has been forbidden since long before COVID happened.

Really? Cause I remember post-9/11 it was a pretty mainstream opinion that America should go glass the middle east. And then, you know, America went and actually did start an awful, bloody war in the middle east that lasted for 20+ years. It was the anti-war people who were getting censored and accused of being terrorist sympathizers.

France refused to go to war in Iraq which pissed the US so much they renamed french fries to freedom fries.

The featured article is about France, not the USA.

Maybe you could go to the Gaza Strip and polity talk to Hamas about the deliriousness effect murdering a 1000 plus people has on freedom of speech.

We'll wait here.

This censorship is in a capital of a western power. We can condemn Hamas AND condemn failing democratic society by not upholding basic freedoms that built it.

The censorship is likely an uncomfortable trade-off. In an ideal world, we would allow speech and carefully police when that speech turns into death threats or violent action.

However, state capabilities and surveillance capabilities are not sufficient in the west for the second part of that. So the devil's compromise is to restrict the former (because people who would be motivated to issue death threats or commit violent actions are frequently encouraged by the former actions of free speech).

Can’t go there, the IAF is leveling all the buildings (and women and children).

Hamas could put their hands up and walk out too.

Israel could stop bombing civilians too.

We could ask what Hamas would do if the power imbalance was the other way.

We both know that you know the answer to that.

Right now no one that's anyone cares about what Israel is going to do to Hamas. Hamas is now like ISIS, the shining path, the red brigades, the Khmer Rouge. Their non existence is a priority.

Who cares what hypothetical situation you can make up to try and justify these atrocities. The reality is that Israel is intentionally bombing innocent civilians, hospitals, cutting power, and depriving people of water. All of this in the open air prison that is Gaza, one of the most densely packed areas in the world.

It’s disgusting and needs to be stopped.

You're the one justifying Hamas killing 1300 people in cold blood. You're the one saying that's justified.

Nah, I’m saying I don’t want innocent Palestinians killed. I didn’t even mention hamas.

Obviously you have no intention of discussing this in good faith, so I’ll just leave you be to keep justifying the killing of children.

Thing that I've noticed is apologists for Hamas don't think murdering 1300 Jews in cold blood is a war crime.