[davidreiss]

> and to be an unwilling vehicle for the Neo Nazi movement is something that no company should want to aspire to.

Does that also apply to pornography? What about atheism? What about lgbt content?

The concerted effort by the pro-censorship crowd to exploit nazis to promote censorship is rather worrying.

[jacquesm]

The concerted effort to equate Neo Nazis to pornographers, atheists and lgbt people is rather worrying as well.

If you can't see the difference between those groups then the problem is on your end.

Hint: Neo Nazis wish to return to the good old days of 1939 or so where Jews and people of color are either dead, outcast, deported, enslaved or stuck in camps while white men rule the land as is their god given right.

So just in case it needs explaining: that's not the moral equivalent of pornographers, atheists or lgbt related material and I'm surprised that that needs spelling out.

[_euac]

Yeah, this whole "Nazi flags == rainbow flag" or "this is a slippery slope" thing the right-wing has been pushing is ludicrous. There's nothing controversial in saying that Nazi ideals are really fucked up. Porn and LGBT people don't kill other people, Nazis did and would do again if given the chance.

[jacquesm]

> Nazis did and would do again if given the chance.

They were just given the chance and did it. And according to their chatter they are gearing up for more.

[Meekro]

I don't think grandparent was equating them, but rather pointing out that someone in a position of power could one day equate them. If the rule is going to be "your website only exists if one of a handful of powerful people don't veto its existence," then you have to worry that one of those powerful people would someday decide that LGBT advocacy turns his stomach in the same way that Daily Stormer pissed off Matthew Prince.

If, on the other hand, the rule is "your website exists as long as the courts don't decide otherwise," then both LGBT sites and Nazi sites are safer.

[jacquesm]

LGBT sites are pretty safe because there are anti discrimination laws that would enable a lawsuit with a high chance of success when discriminated against for that reason. Good luck trying to establish Neo Nazism as a protected class under the law.

[davidreiss]

> Hint: Neo Nazis wish to return to the good old days of 1939 or so where Jews and people of color are either dead, outcast, deported, enslaved or stuck in camps while white men rule the land as is their god given right.

Hint: In other words, neo-nazis have no shot right? So let the neo-nazis have their say.

People like you are so shortsighted that it is bizarre.

We have free speech so that neo-nazis CAN'T win. You start limiting free speech and that's why you have nazi germany.

As my jewish philosophy professor said, nazi germany happened because of censorship. That's why she adamantly supported neo-nazis, kkk, etc having marches and even giving speeches in colleges/forums/etc. And as she said, as long as the most offensive forms of speech are protected, then she knows everyone, including her free speech, is protected.

> The concerted effort to equate Neo Nazis to pornographers, atheists and lgbt people is rather worrying as well.

It's worrying if you don't understand what free speech is about.

The reason why I support free speech for neo-nazis isn't because I agree with them. It's because I don't agree with them.

It's not a matter of just censoring neo-nazis. It's a matter of setting precedence. Okay? If you say it's okay to censor one ideology or one form of speech, then you make a mockery of free speech and nobody has free speech.

If people who disagree with neo-nazis are in power and they censor neo-nazis, then how do we protect ourselves when people who hate porn or gays or atheists are in power? Hmmm? Have you thought about this or are you just going by "emotions"?

The reason why nazi germany happened is because germany had censorship laws. So when hitler won a small minority of votes and he took over the government, he could ban political parties and political speech. If germany had free speech and you couldn't silence the 80% of non-nazis voters, nazi germany could never have happened.

"Saying I support censorship because I find X offensive" is justification for saudis censoring atheists, chinese censoring pro-democracy groups and thais censoring anti-royalty speech.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15035308

Okay? So please take a course in philosophy and try to learn what is really at stake. Because if people like you were in charge in the 1950s, 1960s, etc, we never would have had lgbt movement or atheist movement or the civil rights movement. Because they all would have been censored because they were offensive.

Believe it or not, there was a time in america when lgbt, atheist and civil rights speech was deemed more offensive than nazi speech. Thank god people like you weren't in charge and thank god we had free speech rights so that lgbt, atheists and civil rights groups could speak and express their ideas.

And oddly enough, the pro-censorship people like you are more like nazis since the nazis loved censorship. If you truly are disgusted by nazis, then you should be disgusted by censorship.

[jacquesm]

> In other words, neo-nazis have no shot right?

They actually do, and to close your eyes to the possibility is in light of the developments of the last couple of years a bit strange. But I don't begrudge you your worldview, let's hope you are right and I'm wrong.

Keep in mind that I live in a country that has suffered quite extensively from the previous batch of Nazis, that 'free speech' as you define it is unique to one country only and that that country at present is the one most at risk of having a serious problem on this front. Whether or not 'free speech' as you have enshrined it will survive is up for grabs but is no reason for your rather incoherent post above.

All the 'people like you' references are frankly not conducive to a productive discussion.

[backpropaganda]

What about white nationalists or separatists? People who want a white ethnic country with restricted immigration. Are they outside our moral tolerance as well? AFAIU, a lot of these so-called Nazis are just white nationalists who want to assert their superiority, but not in a Hitler way.

[jacquesm]

> What about white nationalists or separatists? People who want a white ethnic country with restricted immigration.

They have the vote, don't they?

> Are they outside our moral tolerance as well?

Well, they are outside mine so if that's how you roll you won't find yourself invited into my house because you'd be incompatible with whoever else I might invite and you'd be incompatible with me.

> AFAIU, a lot of these so-called Nazis are just white nationalists who want to assert their superiority, but not in a Hitler way.

Yes, all we want is a nice white place for ourselves, and the temporary problem of how to get rid of those who we find objectionable we'll leave to our friends over there.

Note that the one group needs the others if they are to get their way and so they openly support each other and to all intents and purposes might as well be seen as one group by outsiders.

[backpropaganda]

What if they propose a 100% peaceful process? Imagine something like apartheid, i.e. segregated schools, restaurants, etc. There is literally no violence here. Are people allowed to believe in a different set of political axioms (isolationism against multiculturalsim/diversity)?

Note that I'm talking about what stance government and its institutions should take against such rebellion, not who you invite to your private party.

Also, these are not my political beliefs. Just trying to see where the line is being drawn here.

[jacquesm]

> What if they propose a 100% peaceful process? Imagine something like apartheid, i.e. segregated schools, restaurants, etc. There is literally no violence here.

Are you kidding? A 100% peaceful process that will segregate society and return to the days we have fortunately left behind us and you believe that the perpetrators would not use force?

Majority decides that all people of color have to leave and they will just have to abide?

You're going to be in for a rude surprise if you think that would be without violence.

> Are people allowed to believe in a different set of political axioms (isolationism against multiculturalsim/diversity)?

Yes they are, but unfortunately for those people their beliefs are generally against the laws of most or all civilized countries where equality before the law is a very basic principle. What you are advocating is to create classes of humanity that are not equal before the law.

Even if you were to get a majority of a society to accept that there will be an immediate and violent response from the minority that you wish to dis-enfranchise. So there is no '100% peaceful process' to achieve this, that's a pipe dream.

> Note that I'm talking about what stance government and its institutions should take against such rebellion, not who you invite to your private party.

Yes, I got that.

> Also, these are not my political beliefs.

Then you're going to have to be very careful with how you express yourself lest someone mistakenly holds you to account for beliefs you don't have but wish to throw out there as some kind of academic exercise.

> Just trying to see where the line is being drawn here.

Where I deem it to be reasonable: the right for one group to exercise their freedom stops where that group attempts to limit the freedoms of others that they would like to claim for themselves. Symmetry is key.

[backpropaganda]

My conjectured proposal is both symmetrical and consistent with equality: any citizen X is allowed to open restaurant/school which only caters to class Y, for all X and Y. It sure allows apartheid, but there are no perpetrators here. It's perfectly symmetrical.

[_euac]

> The concerted effort by the pro-censorship crowd to exploit nazis to promote censorship is rather worrying.

This, right here, is a straw-man that I've seen repeated countless times. I am not pro-censorship, but I'm sure as hell not for forcing companies to provide services to Nazis and other scum.

There's a huge, gaping difference between those two things and I'd appreciate it if you stopped conflating them.

[mehwoot]

There's a huge, gaping difference between those two things

Is there? If you need companies to effectively publish on the internet, then those companies refusing to work with you means you can't publish. Do you consider that censorship?

[jacquesm]

> Is there?

I'm kind of surprised that would need re-iterating but yes, there is.

> If you need companies to effectively publish on the internet, then those companies refusing to work with you means you can't publish.

No, you can go buy a printer and write your little screed in notepad and print it out, then distribute your copies. Who every equated the internet with all venues of publishing?

> Do you consider that censorship?

Absolutely not. Censorship is when the state muzzles your ability to communicate, see the former eastblock and present day China and North Korea. That's censorship. This is companies deciding who to do business with.

[mehwoot]

Censorship is when the state

I, and most other people, disagree with this definition.

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information that may be considered objectionable... Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[jacquesm]

Yes, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. But for those classes it is a censorship with a relatively limited effect. Censorship at the state level is where it starts to become a real problem.

I have a big problem with people trying to equate objectionable people not being given each and every platform they desire with censorship. If you wish to spew hate and division then you should not be surprised if you will receive some pushback from people who do not wish to become associated with your particular brand of hate. Action begets reaction. I've yet to see an actual example of censorship acted out in a way that I found the term to be appropriate when it concerns online communications between fringe groups and their followers. Typically they're spoiling for a fight and then play the victim when someone engages, and cry 'censorship' when actually censorship and worse is what they would hope to inflict on others if they achieve their stated goal.

It's all about balance.

[mehwoot]

But for those classes it is a censorship with a relatively limited effect.

In this case we're talking about removing these opinions from the internet.

the initial requests we received to terminate their service came from hackers who literally said: "Get out of the way so we can DDoS this site off the Internet."

I don't see any practical difference between this and what China does on the internet. Only difference is I agree with the side that gets to censor here.

[dragonwriter]

> Does that also apply to pornography?

Private internet services of many kinds prohibiting use for “adult” content much more broadly than pornography is routine, and has been for a long time.