It's really hard to prevent "we should do what it takes to maintain the dominance and survival of the white race" and "we should do what it takes to establish a white ethnostate" from being received as a call to violence.
If we're being intellectually honest, we know that they know full well that they're not getting a white ethnostate from peaceful participation in the political process.
Firstly, if someone thinks they can create a white ethnostate without violence, that's their political opinion. You may think that's native and stupid, or even that the person holding it is being duplicitous, but that view in itself is not hate speech.
Secondly, as I mentioned elsewhere, such rationalization can be used to ban a whole lot more speech than just "white ethnostate". Why is Marxism-Leninism still on Facebook? For that matter, since we're not limiting it to overt calls for violence, the mental gymnastics can be effortlessly applied to any calls to overthrow any government, when it's obvious that this cannot be done peacefully.
> if someone thinks they can create a white ethnostate without violence, that's their political opinion. ... that view in itself is not hate speech.
This is certainly an opinion as well, but my view is that the concept of a white ethnostate alone is hateful. Whether or not one can or can't be created without violence is immaterial.
Should people be able to talk about a hypothetical white ethnostate in academic, research, or news-reporting capacities? Sure. But simply promoting a white ethonostate as something that is wanted is, IMO, hateful.
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:
> 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"?
If we're being intellectually honest, we know that they know full well that they're not getting a white ethnostate from peaceful participation in the political process.