[Bud]

>Yes, it is every ad network's right to refuse to associate with Breitbart or anyone else for that matter. But is this really the direction we, as a society, want to move in?

Yes, this is the direction we as a society want to move in. The opposite direction from hate speech. A direction in which large commercial ad enterprises do not support neo-Nazi content and do not support neo-Nazis making a lot of money off said content; at least not on AppNexus' dime.

This is precisely the direction we want to move in.

[tomp]

Can you cite any articles on Breitbart that are "hate speech"?

[Amezarak]

So all we have to do to silence someone is say they're a neo-nazi? Breitbart has strongly and repeatedly denied any association with hate, bigotry, neo-nazis, etc.

Incidentally, Breitbart himself was Jewish, as is the CEO. Neo-nazi seems a particularly bizarre term to apply especially given for a site that was specifically started by Breitbart and Solov to be pro-Israel.

[tomp]

In addition, Milo, one of Breitbart's most famous journalists, is Jewish by ethnicity, gay, and self-reportedly loves "black dudes".

[DasIch]

Of course Breitbart claims that. Go to a prison and you'll see all the inmates claiming innocence. If this is the best argument you can up with I'd advice to not bring it up at all.

[striking]

You're sure about that? 95% of federal convictions in 2004 were via guilty pleas. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=qa&iid=405

[DasIch]

How many of those involved plea deals? If you can't afford legal representation, you won't get anything that deserves to be called that in the US. If you're then also faced with the ridiculously high sentences you can get in the US, you'll no doubt find yourself pleading guilty to a lot of things to get a deal.