[pajamanaut]

As to your first point, I don't disagree. The analogy has been used frequently in bad faith. That is not what I am doing here, and I think Homles' statement, regardless of his intent, is still fundamentally correct. We can discuss what responses to take freely, but uncomfortable facts are facts. I don't think allowing communities explicitly dedicated to denial of those facts brings us anything of value.

The Supreme Court case in which this saying originated was one where someone advocated protesting the draft. He spoke truths, and gave advice and opinions. He did not spread disinformation.

Regarding your second statement, deplatforming works to an extent. People do not change their minds, but they do lose influence over the larger conversation.