
Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression - generic_user
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/fighting-neo-nazis-future-free-expression
======
Overtonwindow
"[W]e strongly believe that what GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudflare did here was
dangerous. That’s because, even when the facts are the most vile, we must
remain vigilant when platforms exercise these rights. Because Internet
intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online
speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on
speech around the world."

Well said. I'm glad EFF is not burrying their heads in the sand and hiding
behind the "but they're nazis!" Excuse.

~~~
mc32
Can't agree more. Today it's Nazis, tomorrow it's not showing enough support
for the chosen candidate. This is the one slippery slope. It's evident in PC-
speech. Today's PC speech is not the PC speech from the 90s.

And it's not that I don't like Pc speech. I prefer it. But I also don't want
it to be the only kind of speech one can use for discussion. Try and have any
good philosophical argument without breaking PC boundaries.

It's a scary thing when one group controls the narrative of what is acceptable
and unacceptable speech.

~~~
dandersh
No, there is no slippery slope. This is a group that advocates an ideology
that, when it was put in place, resulted in catastrophe for mankind.

In other words, what they advocate is what exists at the bottom of the slope.
You know, Godwin's Law and all that?

~~~
BearGoesChirp
>This is a group that advocates an ideology that, when it was put in place,
resulted in catastrophe for mankind.

And what about other ideologies which have had similar results? How many has
died under communist? What about religious extremist whose beliefs have led to
mass murder?

Are we being consistent with the reasoning? If not, then the reasoning given
isn't the actual reasoning, so what is the actual reasoning?

~~~
namlem
Ideologies that inadvertently caused many deaths are different from one where
mass murder is the stated goal.

~~~
BearGoesChirp
What happens if the deaths are a direct result, but not openly stated in the
10 minute summary?

Take for example, a group that wants to remove undesirables from the US (I'll
leave which group open for imagination, it doesn't really matter). They
advocate non-violent removal through legal means. This sounds nice in
practice, but many, especially libertarians, will quickly realize that any
police enforcement of such laws would result in threats of violence. Namely,
either the group leave willingly or police will begin to physically attack
them to arrest them, and any resistance would be met with tasers on a good day
or bullets on a bad day.

Even though they advocate non-violent methods, I think it is reasonable to say
they are actually advocating violence (unless they can purpose some truly non-
violent method that I'm unaware of).

------
emmelaich
There are many good quotes on freedom of speech to ponder.[1]

I think my favourite is Mencken's.

> _The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one
> 's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive
> laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it
> is to be stopped at all._

A close second is Wilde's:

> _“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to
> make an ass of yourself.”_

[1] [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/freedom-of-
speech](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/freedom-of-speech)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Mencken was of course famously anti-semetic and racist, though the claims of
his support of the Nazi's may be overstated.

One interesting quote in this regard is this:

"Any defense of Germany was impossible, he concluded, ''so long as the chief
officer of the German state continues to make speeches worthy of an Imperial
Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and his followers imitate, plainly with his
connivance, the monkey-shines of the American Legion at its worst.''"

Weird to see Hitler, before he became the go-to bad guy, being compared with
classic American racism and political violence, with the implication that
better is expected of him.

------
meri_dian
This is how extremism spreads:

1\. A Reasonable Position is expressed, in this case - 'Nazi's are very bad'.
The Reasonable Position often involves an Enemy that must be stopped. Most
reasonable people will agree with the Reasonable Position.

2\. The Reasonable Position becomes the overriding factor in any situation
that involves it. All other factors and considerations are dwarfed by it and
forgotten.

3\. Because the Reasonable Position comes to dominate the thinking of the
Extremist - who often means well - they come to believe one can only ever be
for or against the Reasonable Position. There is no room for moderate
positions that try to balance the Reasonable Position with other important
considerations and values - in this case, freedom of speech.

4\. In order to show support for the Reasonable Position, third parties are
forced to action in accordance with the world view of the Extremist. If they
try to balance other considerations against the Reasonable Position, they are
seen by the Extremist as sympathizing with the Enemy.

5\. The fervor of extremism charges through society, trampling on other values
and considerations.

Some historical examples:

>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution)

>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)

>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials)

~~~
kenjackson
But how do you know the reasonable position isn't "Freedom of speech is good"?

And it seems that the "Freedom of speech" position is the one that has
expanded more in context than "Nazis are very bad". Thus far people don't seem
to be applying the badness of Nazis to non-Nazis (at least not intentionally),
but we do seem to be expanding Freedom of speech slowly beyond government
censorship to asking private entities to propagate speech.

~~~
julianmarq
> But how do you know the reasonable position isn't "Freedom of speech is
> good"?

Because it's the best (probably only) way to prevent every _actual_ Reasonable
Position from overriding every other factor and consideration. If freedom of
speech is the default, there's no way an extremist group will stop
conversation about any particular issue.

> Thus far people don't seem to be applying the badness of Nazis to non-Nazis
> (at least not intentionally)

This is Godwin's Law, which is in itself a testament to how common this is.

~~~
kenjackson
>Because it's the best (probably only) way to prevent every actual Reasonable
Position from overriding every other factor and consideration.

That seems like an unsubstantiated assertion. As we've discussed here, the
extremist view of freedom of speech forces your ideas on me. At the extreme I
now have to hire people who believe that I should be tortured because I'm a
minority.

Any reasonable position taken to an extreme can result in a bad situation. The
fact that it's reasonable in moderation is, as you note, what makes it
dangerous. Nothing about freedom of speech seems to make it much different
than something like "killing innocent people is bad".

And Goodwin's Law is about non-serious internet rhetoric. Not about actually
treating people as Nazi war criminals. And oddly we treat Nazi's really well
in the US, despite the Reasonable Position most people have about them.

------
CaptSpify
I'm _super_ proud to be a member of the EFF. It's hard to keep a clear head in
emotionally tense times like these. It's groups like the EFF that help
everyone.

If you can:
[https://supporters.eff.org/donate](https://supporters.eff.org/donate)

~~~
tortasaur
I agree. The ACLU, on the other hand, has begun to rationalize their way out
of defending white nationalists. Not exactly a very good defender of civil
liberties if they start drawing ideological lines as to who they defend.

I had just started donating to them in the last week, too; I felt a bit silly
canceling so soon.

~~~
CaptSpify
source on the ACLU thing?

~~~
manco
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/aclu-changes-policy-on-
defendin...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/aclu-changes-policy-on-defending-
hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms-1503010167)

------
Pfhreak
The takeaway from this for me is not, "Don't get rid of Nazis", but rather,
"Have a clear criteria and process for when you will remove content. Follow
that process."

Great, 100% agreed with that. Be clear and up front about terms of service,
and be clear and open when they are violated.

That said, I'm not 100% agreed that "Whatever you use against Neo-Nazis will
be used 'against the ones you love'." That's a slippery slope argument that I
personally don't believe. Neo-nazis are such a different class of evil, that
it's hard for me to see the same practices being used against someone who is
not them.

~~~
UnpossibleJim
And that's fine. You get to draw that line in the sand, but you have to do two
things: 1) Don't say you are for freedom of expression. you aren't. 2) Be
consistent. ISIS propaganda websites must be wholly refused to be hosted. Many
(not as fringe as you'd like to think) websites in the Middle East, Eastern
Bloc and Russia must also be taken down when discussing the Jews, as well. Any
website that blatantly talks about the overthrow of the US government because
it is run by the "white patriarchy" (yes, you can be racist against whites
too). The lists go on. Denying that a lot of people were killed needlessly in
the advancement of a Stalinist ideal, etc. etc.

You get to have that opinion. You get to think that the slippery slope
argument is bullshit. That is your right. People told me that I was using a
slippery slope argument when I said using the wartime powers act against
"terrorism" was a quick sink to unjust presidential powers. I stand by my
argument then and I stand by my slippery slope argument now.

~~~
Pfhreak
There's a lot to unpack in your comment. I do want to address a few things:

> People told me that I was using a slippery slope argument when I said using
> the wartime powers act against "terrorism" was a quick sink to unjust
> presidential powers.

Is it different to you that the actions here were taken by companies, not by
the government? To the best of my knowledge, there was no mandate to take
these sites down.

> Be consistent

Sure, this is my original takeaway from the article -- establish clear
boundaries, openly follow those rules when someone violates those boundaries.
It causes confusion and uncertainty when you don't follow your published
rules.

~~~
lovich
On your consistency point I agree. On your point about whether its different
if the government or companies take the action I pose another question. Is
there a difference between the results of the two when companies take more and
more power every day? If a company can remove you from interacting with a
majority of the internet, is that any different from the FCC or some other
agency removing you?

~~~
xupybd
The difference is companies have the power given to them by consumers. The
government has power by way of being the government.

------
yarg
This is a multifaceted debate; cloudflare is under no obligation what-so-ever
to keep retain any customer - unless it has placed itself under a contractual
obligation to do so.

The neo-nazi sites themselves should in general not be interfered with from a
governmental level - but there should be limitations of even this restriction,
when it comes to the advocacy, planning and execution of violence.

In a more general sense I see the silencing of free-speech on the internet as
a call to move to a more decentralised structure - as per what seemed to be
the original intent - we generally seem to be moving yet further away from
such a structure; although there are a significant number of emerging
distributed technologies - as yet they seem to be niche in their utilisation.

(Somewhat tangentally, I see the free speech and public emergence of the now
emboldened neo-nazis as somewhat a good thing, they were always there - but
now they're in the public eye.)

------
cal5k
It actually makes me incredibly optimistic about the future of humanity to
know that such people exist. It's important to fight for the rights of all -
you never know when your cause or beliefs will be in the crosshairs instead of
a group as obviously vile as neo-nazis.

~~~
ebola1717
I'm pretty sure to fight for people's rights, you have to fight against nazis.
At least that's what all my history books told me we did in world war 2.

~~~
UnpossibleJim
as unfortunate as it may be, you not only have to fight against the nazis
ideals, but also for their right to hold them and speak them in a public
forum, like any other citizen. That's from the history books about the
country's founding.

~~~
ebola1717
Nope. Nazi speech is banned in Germany cause they learned their lesson.

~~~
e9
We all know Nazi are bad, no one in their right mind will deny it. But the way
they are currently handled through violence and censorship is not right and
downright illegal. You are feeding their anger instead of squashing their
ideas. We are American citizens and should respect each others right for free
speech and engage in civil debate over ideas we disagree. If we resolve to
silencing and violence without debate how are we better? Have you talked to
any Nazi? Are you sure they know history and what Nazi stands for? etc etc etc
I personally haven't met one ever but when I do I won't punch them with a fist
but punch them with debate.

~~~
liberte82
Nazis don't _have_ ideas. They will jump from truth to lies as it suits them
to win an argument. They do not live in the world of civil debate. Think of
them as trolls from before trolls were a thing. They are not an ideology, they
are a hate movement. Silencing them does not make their hate grow, they are
already fundamentally about hate. They are a passion, not an ideology. Tell me
what is the tax policy of a fascist? They have none, save that of whichever
system they hijack en route to their only real mission, which is the
elimination and persecution of their perceived enemies. We fought the worst
war the world has ever seen to stop them because once they got rolling, they
had to keep growing to survive. That's the nature of hate. They certainly
weren't going to be stopped by _debate_.

From Sartre: "The anti-Semite has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at the
outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he
feels as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions about the rights of
the Jew appear to him. He has pleased himself on other ground from the
beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of
view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project
his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse. Never believe that anti-
Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know
that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing
themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly,
since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even
like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit
the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith,
since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and
disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent,
loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is
not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear
ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over
some third person to their side."

It seems that America is going to insist on finding out what fascism is really
about the hard way.

~~~
e9
so do you recommend banning all hate movements? As article points out "Those
on the left face calls to characterize the Black Lives Matter movement as a
hate group." Where do you draw the line?

~~~
liberte82
Note that I am calling for banning hate speech, not the groups themselves.

I would say that there needs to be evidence. We need to live in a reality-
based world, not one that makes decisions based on feelings. If there is
evidence of BLM making specific claims that calls for persecution or violence
then the people making that speech should be charged under applicable hate
speech laws. For example I did think that that "fry cops fry" chant or
whatever it was from a couple years ago was an incitement to violence.

But overall: I don't think BLM is a hate movement just because some right-
wingers want to say it is. But go off evidence and go case by case like we do
in a just society.

Also to add: I see this "where do you draw the line" argument everywhere and
it is fallacious. We draw lines _all the time_ in our society. That is
literally what law is. We outlaw murder, we outlaw theft, and many other
things. And there are ambiguous cases that courts need to decide around all
these things. Is assisted suicide murder? Is abortion murder? Is pirating
theft? These are big questions that we face all the time as a society and
debate and come up with answers for. Hate speech would be no different. We
decide as a society what is hateful and it becomes law and then we set
precedent through the court system. There are plenty of examples of successful
hate speech laws implemented in other western countries to get us off to a
great start.

~~~
e9
Those would be some tough laws to write. It seems like a lot of things that
are hate related are very much feelings based and sometimes its just
misunderstanding or ignorance. Separating feelings from hate would be tough
and may have unintended consequences. Do you know of anyone who thought deeply
about this topic?

~~~
liberte82
Sure. Many countries have had these debates and come up with their own
solutions.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech)

Here are a few examples:

In Canada, advocating genocide against any "identifiable group" is an
indictable offence under the Criminal Code and carries a maximum sentence of
five years imprisonment. There is no minimum sentence.

France prohibits by its penal code and by its press laws public and private
communication which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a
person or a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack
thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or
handicap.

In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred") is a punishable
offense under Section 130 of Germany's criminal code and can lead to up to
five years imprisonment. Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite
hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary
measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a
manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. On June 30,
2017, Germany approved a bill criminalizing hate speech on social media sites.

In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalize hate speech against
several categories of persons. The statutes forbid communication which is
hateful, threatening, or abusive, and which targets a person on account of
disability, ethnic or national origin, nationality (including citizenship),
race, religion, sexual orientation, or skin colour.

~~~
e9
Thanks

------
ameister14
I think we should examine the effectiveness of bans on speech r.e. limitation
of the spread of an ideology.

For example, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (not a group with an
incentive to deflate numbers), at its peak the National Alliance had 1,200
members. All together, there are a few thousand active Neo-Nazis in the United
States.

In contrast, let's take 2 countries where advocating Nazi ideology is illegal:
Austria and Germany.

In Austria, the Freedom Party, founded by a former SS officer, has 50,000
members, 13 seats in the Upper House (similar to the Senate in the US) and 38
seats in the lower house as well as 4 in the European Parliament.

In Germany, the NPD received over 600,000 votes in the most recent election
and now has a seat in the European Parliament.

~~~
putsteadywere
I don't think comparing the adoption rate of Nazi ideology in nations where it
was historically successful to nations where it was historically unsuccessful
is appropriate.

A more equivalent comparison is Nazi ideology in Germany/Austria to Klanist
ideology in the United States. The list of US politicians with Klan
affiliation is long.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics)

~~~
pfg
In addition to this, comparing Austria and Germany, which both are multi-party
systems, to a two-party system like the United States is problematic in this
context. A significant chunk of the GOP and their voters likely support the
same policies that the Freedom Party or the NPD support, but it's much harder
to label or quantify that group.

~~~
ameister14
Which is why I used active members and the Southern Poverty Law Center as well
as voting numbers.

~~~
pfg
These numbers aren't comparable. You're equating membership of an actual Nazi
group with being a member of a far-right party with historical ties to Nazis.
A much more apt comparison to these parties would be to look at members of the
GOP who support far-right policies, but that's hard to quantify.

FWIW, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether laws banning Nazi
speech have a large impact on the number of people supporting that ideology. I
don't think they _increase_ the number of Nazis, and it makes sense to keep
them around given the historical context of countries like Austria and Germany
even if they don't have an impact on that number.

I _do_ think you're quite far off the mark if you think less than 0.001% of
the U.S. population identifies with Nazi ideology, while it's something like
1% for Austria and Germany.

~~~
ameister14
I don't think the GOP/NDP comparison is apt, because Germany attempted to ban
the NDP completely and the NDP works continuously with literal Nazis. If the
KKK had a political party of its own, that would be comparable. There are only
a few thousand members of the KKK left, though, so that is unlikely to occur.

I think that for the same percentage to identify with Nazi ideology it would
require millions of people to be so comfortable with it that they would openly
give Nazi affiliated parties their support.

I don't think millions of people support Neo-Nazis in the US.

------
deckar01
> SUSPENSION AND CANCELLATION. Google may in its sole discretion, suspend or
> cancel Registrant’s Registered Name registration (a) if Registrant breaches
> this Agreement (including a breach of any of the representations and
> warranties in Section 7); (b) to comply with a court order or other legal
> requirement; (c) as required by ICANN, a Registry Operator, or law
> enforcement; (d) to protect the integrity and stability of the Services; (e)
> if there was an error in the registration process for such Registered Name,
> or (f) if Registrant’s Account is disabled or terminated.

[https://payments.google.com/payments/apis-
secure/get_legal_d...](https://payments.google.com/payments/apis-
secure/get_legal_document?ldt=domainstos)

I wonder which clause they cited to execute the suspension.

~~~
Miner49er
Interesting. I'm not a lawyer. Could the DailyStorm sue Google over this? I
don't see anything in that agreement that says Google could've put their
domain on client hold.

------
xupybd
"It’s unclear whether this is for a limited amount of time, or whether Google
has decided to effectively take ownership of the dailystormer.com domain
permanently"

Wait, what, they can do this? So if I get Google to host my domain they can
just take it at will? Given the value of some domains that's insane. Google
must be on shaky legal ground here.

~~~
CaptSpify
I was surprised by this too, but Google is one of the biggest kids on the
playground right now, so I guess it's natural for them to throw their weight
around.

Obvious note: Outsourcing your stuff to a 3rd party like that is risky, and
should be considered so

~~~
peoplewindow
It's not really about them being a big kid in the playground ... they're
surely a minor player in the DNS hosting market.

It's more that their internal extremism means they feel justified in doing
this sort of thing because they feel 'dangerous' speech must be suppressed.

I am concluding that Google is no longer trustworthy enough to run a search
engine.

------
jeffdavis
"incite hate"

That is a scary, clever manipulation of language. Inciting violence is an
exception to free speech because it is directly linked to a specific violent
result.

"Hate" is non-specific, and not an action at all. It often means nothing more
than offending someone or violating some political correctness. Hate speech is
and should be protected speech.

~~~
tchaffee
Hate speech is protected from the government interfering with it. Other than
that, there are no protections. Google or any other company or individual is
perfectly free to give a platform to only the speech they decide to. Because
they too are protected from government interference.

~~~
jeffdavis
True, and we are free to criticize them for abusing their power. Further, we
should reconsider the high amount of trust we place in Google, et al.

------
tekromancr
I really don't understand the resistance here. I have heard no arguments
against no-platforming isis propaganda. Youtube, twitter, facebook all have a
policy of removing such content. I don't really have a problem with white
supremacists also being no-platformed. These are private entities, deciding
for themselves that they refuse to be party to such content. Let the dipshits
buy their own damn servers.

Now, the minute either group is harassed or arrested by the government over
things is when it becomes a problem. That is actual censorship, and should be
resisted.

~~~
gcp
The point that's being made is that, indeed, as private entities they have the
right to ban this content from their sites.

But due to the SIZE of these operations, their actions _practically_ amount to
censorship.

Saying that the right of free speech only protects you against the government
does not mean much in practice, in these circumstances.

~~~
tekromancr
It means all the difference in the world. It means that they won't be arrested
for their speech. They won't be jailed. They won't be executed for speaking
out against the government. Which is, ironically, very different from the
historical treatment of dissidents by governments who adopt their politics.

It also means that, for example, they have the freedom to pool funds and buy
their own server, and host it in a datacenter that is willing to do business
with them, or they can host their shit on ipfs.

It's not like someone like Level 2 is stepping in and saying "We are going to
deep inspect all traffic going across our pipe and filter nazi traffic"

~~~
gcp
_It also means that, for example, they have the freedom to pool funds and buy
their own server, and host it in a datacenter that is willing to do business
with them, or they can host their shit on ipfs._

It's not going to help them much if they can't get a domain registrar, or
effective DDoS protection (rather relevant given their situation).

~~~
anigbrowl
So what? The Daily Stormer isn't being treated as a pariah because Andrew
Anglin is Caucasian, but because he calls for white supremacy and war against
others.

~~~
gcp
_So what?_

So they don't get freedom of speech, which is the discussion here. Most people
believe freedom of speech is a good thing we want.

~~~
anigbrowl
And also that it has limits. Eliminationist threats don't deserve
constitutional protection for the same reason as other kinds of criminal
threats.

------
nsnick
"on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used
against others, including people whose opinions we agree with"

------
sangnoir
I'm amazed at how the HN's Libertarian streak gets subdued when discussing
free speech (which only enjoins the government). Private individuals and
corporations should be free to decide who they want to do business with (even
if it's under duress of bad PR).

When Brendan Eich was ousted[1] from Mozilla, I warned that the boycott threat
set a bad precedent. The counter argument at the time was that "his donation
wasn't free speech" and rights weren't negotiable. In the aftermath of 3
people losing their lives in Charlottesville, supporting the Daily Stormer is
clearly Bad for Business™ - even if none of the companies are explicitly
stating how commercially toxic DS has become.

1\. He was ousted, his resignation was a technicality

~~~
kadenshep
>I'm amazed at how the HN's Libertarian streak gets subdued

I'm not. The moral lukewarmness and willingness to stick to quite literally
the HN (obviously comprised of white suburbanites) echo chamber should be
quite obvious at this point on the site, to anyone willing to observe such
patterns and how political rhetoric on this site is contained. Commenters seem
to do damn near anything to not even so much as turn their heads to the left
socially. Look at which comments are being downvoted in this thread and
objectively ask yourself whether those downvotes have actual merit.

So what is being defended here in reference to the ideal of free speech?
Actual Nazis with a known ideology, and known consequences of that ideology,
are trying to spread their message. This isn't a matter of some moral
ambiguity or merely silencing those we have "disagreements" with. I'd be nice
if people in the U.S. would stop feigning ignorance or neutrality all to put
up some faux enlightened defense of an abstract ideal. Be practical. It's not
going to be a slippery slope. We're not going to turn into 1984. A private
company chose to not do business with a group of people hellbent on spreading
a totalitarian racist ideology. An ideology that speaks to some pretty primal
fears and habits of humans. It's okay to correct for it.

I'll repeat it again, just to end: it's _okay_ and _necessary_ to silence
these people. It's not going to open Pandora's box. Not addressing the problem
will. I think the EFF's take on this, while noble, is naively idealistic.

------
narrator
Even more disturbing to me is that Youtube has started banning UFO research
channels like Steve Greer's CSETI. I don't really bother watching these
channels and consider the UFO thing a bit of a quasi-religion, but they aren't
inciting violence or hate against anybody.

Has Google decided they are now the truth police? Is Google taking it upon
themselves to be like the Chinese censorship bureaus except for the whole
world? I think this shows that the hate speech censorship is a real slippery
slope.

~~~
anigbrowl
Maybe you should investigate the context before leaping to conclusions.
According to this discussion Many people view Greer as a swindler/scammer.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/6toeoz/cseti_youtube_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/6toeoz/cseti_youtube_channel_shut_down/)

------
tim333
The Daily Stormer is still expressing itself freely at
[http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/](http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/) Latest
featured story "Atari Promises Faggots It’ll Produce Homo Video Games." Does
it really matter that Cloudflare dropped them? You have a right to free
speech, not a right to be promoted by Cloudflare and Google.

------
nkristoffersen
Don't we already block and shutdown Islamic terrorist sites? How are Nazi
terrorist sites different?

~~~
ebcode
You're getting warmer.

------
forthefuture
If the EFF really wants to support free speech they could host the Daily
Stormer and see what happens to their donations.

It seems duplicitous to force someone else to bear the cost of facilitating
toxicity.

------
generic_user
We have to be steadfast to the idea that defending the free speech that you
might find repulsive is defending your own right to free speech.

~~~
randrews
That's a great way to put it! I am going to use that.

------
rev_null
I understand the argument that they're making, but the EFF also offers a
browser extension to block adware (privacy badger). Is hate speech somehow
more justifiable than adware?

~~~
gcp
You're free not to install it, and the EFF has no overwhelming market power
that makes it impossible to avoid their extension.

Google, Cloudflare, etc, not so much.

------
dgudkov
The internet needs a constitution.

------
cup
Should all forms of speech be defended and accessible in a public domain?

Should instructions on how to make explosives be accessible and defended?

~~~
solomatov
In Brandenburg v Ohio, Supreme court stated that only speech that is "directed
to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or
produce such action" should be punished. This is called Brandenburg paradigm
and it's currently a legal standard for what's considered hate speech in US.

See more:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)

------
Raz2
Uneducated people should be protected from ideas that are proven to be bad.
Looks like America just can't learn lessons like Sandy Hook or this one.

~~~
gcp
_Uneducated people should be protected from ideas that are proven to be bad._

Like capitalism?

Or free Negroes?

Western Culture?

~~~
Raz2
Please don't make it absurd. The border is very clear. Ideas that undoubtedly
caused tens of millions of deaths. It is even worse than child porn.

~~~
CaptSpify
> Ideas that undoubtedly caused tens of millions of deaths.

Like slavery or manifest destiny? both ideas that America as a whole supported
at one time, and used ideas like "they are too uneducated" to prop up.

------
tchaffee
Google is rightly protected from government interference of their right to
exercise free speech just like all individuals and companies in the US.

The EFF is confusing a free speech problem with a monopoly problem. One would
hope they aren't suggesting that the government be allowed to interfere with
Google's speech.

So if they aren't, they are basically saying "bad boy, shame on you" to Google
and others. It will have zero impact.

The right way to solve this problem is to name the actual problem and forget
about free speech: monopoly. Break up Google and these other companies and
problem solved.

------
unityByFreedom
I prefer to stand against groups that promote violence.

> CANTWELL: "a lot more people are gonna die before we're done here" [1]

I'm pretty sure the Daily Stormer said something similar. I don't need that
crap in my backyard.

[1]
[https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?t=20m51s](https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?t=20m51s)

------
dredmorbius
I've sided with the EFF on many, many, many causes.

I've sided _against_ Google on numerous causes.

The EFF are wrong. Google is correct.

And yes, the reasons are complicated. But "slippery slope" is a facile
fallacy.

Ultimately, society can, does, and _must_ defend itself from attacks.
Including attacks on the underprivileged (of whom the Fascists and Nazis at
question here are _not_ ).

The history of media and new-media utilisation in demagoguery,
totalitarianism, mob incitement and rule, and fascism is rich. It should give
strong cause to pause to those who've sung (and believed) the narrative of the
all-positive, peace-and-harmony bringing Internet. As I long had.

And am now pausing.

 _Epistemic systems gain significance when they can be abused for personal,
political, nationalistic, or fascistic gain._ That was the insight of a friend
of mine some months back. Call it "the paradox of epistemic systems".

This includes Hacker News itself, which seems to have quite the fascist
problem, and an unwillingness, at the moderator level itself, to face that,
over concerns of "dignity".

Those concerns are very, very, desperately and sadly misplaced.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_ep...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_epistemic_systems_gain_social_and_political/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6ufeu1/does_ha...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6ufeu1/does_hacker_news_have_a_fascismdenial_problem/)

~~~
piaste
> This includes Hacker News itself, which seems to have quite the fascist
> problem

And here we go.

For all the people who (correctly) wondered "how broad will the definition of
'nazi' get", well, parent just helpfully illustrated it for you. The Hacker
News comments section has been declared full of fascist unpersons who must be
silenced at all costs.

But remember:

> But "slippery slope" is a facile fallacy.

~~~
anigbrowl
Far from it. You're equating the observation that a fascist tendency exists
with an unjust accusation of participation therein. You're also conflating
advocacy of ideology with essential personal characteristics.

