[thinkfurther]

Sunlight in this case would be doing for Nazis what they themselves won't do because they're unable -- recognize them for who they are and act accordingly.

> In the echo chamber of extremism, there is now no moderating thought

This is not how any of this works.

[doubleshame]

We are NOT fighting the people here, we're fighting the ideas. I don't think we should ever forget this.

[int_19h]

We're absolutely fighting people. There was a man behind the wheel of that car, you know - it wasn't an abstract idea that drove it into the crowd.

[doubleshame]

I agree, so take action against that specific man, and take action because he was responsible for an act of violence.

If ten people standing in a row have an idea, you cannot destroy the idea by shooting all of them in the head.

If one of them causes violence, you should not shoot all of them in retaliation.

What would be your judgement if this radical group was just sitting away in their homes typing out blog posts? Would you still censor them?

[int_19h]

It depends on the nature of the blog posts.

If they are specifically inciting this kind of violence, then yes, I think it is entirely correct to persecute all of them.

If they're talking about violence in abstract, then no. However, it should be sufficient reason for our security services to track the people expressing such ideas very closely, basically assuming that they're up to something, and ready to crack down on them as soon as those abstract ideas transform into any kind of concrete plan.

[thinkfurther]

You too should read this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032018

and maybe this for good measure:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15014737

I forgot nothing, I'd rather say I know things you haven't yet understood.

[doubleshame]

Thanks for these choice quotes.

I completely agree for the need for boundaries, but I think we've done a most excellent job of setting them!

The current boundary is speech that immediately incites violence, I believe the supreme court interpretation has been very generous towards the notion of free speech, including hate speech, as it should be!

Here's why:

We should let the radicals be racist and make radical statements as much as they want. At the point at which they turn violent or call for specific acts of violence we should step in and shut that stuff down.

A blanket militant action against the whole ideology will no doubt show better results on shutting down the movement on a short term.

But the notion of freedom of speech is not meant to protect these radicals, it is meant to protect ourselves and the integrity of society! We cannot make exceptions to these rules just because it's more convenient to us now, because this weakens the principle. This is the whole slippery slope argument.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

If you wish to change the lines on which we use force, you must make a coherent case based on principle, not on convenience or anecdotes, as the principles themselves already account for, in a deep way, the history to which you allude.

[thinkfurther]

> The current boundary is speech that immediately incites violence

Well good luck then. Just like Hitler famously wanted people to not wait for his orders, but distill his wishes and creatively go beyond in doing things in his spirit to get official support later, the guy who drove his car full speed into people didn't need anyone to specifically tell them to do that.

> At the point at which they turn violent or call for specific acts of violence we should step in and shut that stuff down.

Oh, so the second the car approaches the crowd, time just stops and it gets "shut down"? No wait, that's totally not what happened and also what will happen as this shit repeats under a president who implicitly supports it and a populace that would rather berate those who DO want to shut it down than those who need shutting down.

Only very few will call for "specific acts of violence", I won't join you in holding your breath for that. Read Hannah Arendt and Sebastian Haffner or don't. These aren't anecdotes, these are your betters, casting pearls before pigs. Pearls that were bought with suffering the likes of which neither you or I can even begin to imagine. But if you offer yourself as hostage to the Nazis, then you're out of what I consider polite society, too.