Electric Frontier Foundation: Silencing "The Daily Stormer" Threatens Free Expression - Polidicks

i think it's obviously a problem when google is doing the banning - google has the kind of omnipresence and power that a government agency would have but they aren't regulated accordingly. google is pretty much a public utility at this point and it should reflect that rather than it being (as it is still) a for-profit company that's unaccountable to anyone

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;52588920]I don't think shutting down discussion about how we should genocide the inferior races has any scary implications tbh.[/QUOTE] it is the display of the power that is concentrated in the hands of a few private entities that is concerning. for now, i trust google and other companies to only remove what is essentially objectively dangerous and objectionable content, but i am also not naive enough to believe they are incorruptible. as i have previously said i don't think this was necessarily the wrong move but i also hope it remains a rare occurrence. [editline]18th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;52588945]You're correct, hate speech is protected free speech. Do you know what else is free speech? Companies refusing to do business with those that use hate speech. By saying that GoDaddy and Cloudflare shouldn't be allowed to ban hate speech from their private platform, you're saying they do not have a right to free speech. Daily Stormer can always buy their own servers for hosting and spread a hosts file over USB if they really want to.[/QUOTE] in a sense, the same freedom of speech argument could be used to justify ISPs enacting fast lanes.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52587908]i don't see why we can't draw the line at "self professed nazi propaganda"[/QUOTE] because unfortunately, nazis are people too, and they're entitled to air their opinions just like the rest of us. If their platform is subject to arbitrary removal, so is yours, and so is mine. Now if they act on their shitty ideas, that's a problem. But until that happens, they have every right to express them.

If, theoretically, a nearby country with a Nazi leader and ideology went to war or committed acts of subterfuge or even terrorism in the US, I wonder if it would still be 'against freedom of speech' according to EFF to shut down their websites. Because the only acceptable category for Nazis is enemies of America and everything it stands for. Nazis are an exception to the freedom of speech concept; the Allies succeeded against the Axis in 1945 but we never stopped fighting the ideology that remained, hence, we continue to be, morally at least, at war with it. I doubt pro-ISIS websites would last five minutes online?

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52589842]because unfortunately, nazis are people too, and they're entitled to air their opinions just like the rest of us. If their platform is subject to arbitrary removal, so is yours, and so is mine. Now if they act on their shitty ideas, that's a problem. But until that happens, they have every right to express them.[/QUOTE] I'd be okay with that as long as them expressing themselves doesn't involve calling for genocide of other races but unfortunately that seems to be at the core of their very ideology, so I dunno.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52589842]because unfortunately, nazis are people too, and they're entitled to air their opinions just like the rest of us. If their platform is subject to arbitrary removal, so is yours, and so is mine. Now if they act on their shitty ideas, that's a problem. But until that happens, they have every right to express them.[/QUOTE] Since when is "we don't want people trying to incite violence" arbitrary? Doesn't seem very arbitrary at all to me.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52589842]because unfortunately, nazis are people too, and they're entitled to air their opinions just like the rest of us. If their platform is subject to arbitrary removal, so is yours, and so is mine. Now if they act on their shitty ideas, that's a problem. But until that happens, they have every right to express them.[/QUOTE] They acted on their shitty ideas and someone died. I think that's enough to subject them to a lot more scrutiny. The entire "they can say whatever they want unless people get hurt" logic is dumb because that "unless people get hurt" part tends to imply death, life-changing injuries or general misery. People shouldn't be allowed to promote ideals whose outcome can easily be discerned as negative or hurtful.

threatens free expression? you mean how like aceh stays with sharia law bc of religious freedom?

[QUOTE=Spectre1406;52590151]threatens free expression? you mean how like aceh stays with sharia law bc of religious freedom?[/QUOTE] Difference between Nazi ideology and Sharia law being that there is nothing inherently violent or oppressive about Sharia it. Sharia law is little different than Canon Law -- it's simply a code of ethics and behavior that practicioners of the faith should adhere to in order to be closer to God. Many of the tenants are quite vague, and while some of them definitely seem a bit fucked by modern standards, they aren't practiced in the world at large anymore. The nasty shit comes in with the extreme interpretations and/or implementations seen in specific fundamentalist/zealot cultures, such as those under theocratic dictatorships/monarchies, tribal structures, and extremist groups. Nazi ideology, however, literally cannot exist when separated from violence, abuse, and oppression. It is the cornerstone of the philosophy.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52587908]i don't see why we can't draw the line at "self professed nazi propaganda"[/QUOTE] because an anti-left narrative grew with trump and his presidency proves that the narrative can achieve powerful things. silencing white nationalist shit today sets a precedent that [I]will[/I] certainly be used in the future, and who knows what the current narrative will be when that happens. daily stormer today, antifa stuff tomorrow, civil movements that are 'dangerously pc' after that, etc.

[QUOTE=Spectre1406;52590151]threatens free expression? you mean how like aceh stays with sharia law bc of religious freedom?[/QUOTE] This shit with Comparing Nazism to Islam is getting really fucking old. We have about 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world. Do they all believe in Sharia Law? No. On the other hand, Nazis. They all believe they need to slaughter all the inferior races.

[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;52590731]because an anti-left narrative grew with trump and his presidency proves that the narrative can achieve powerful things. silencing white nationalist shit today sets a precedent that [I]will[/I] certainly be used in the future, and who knows what the current narrative will be when that happens. daily stormer today, antifa stuff tomorrow, civil movements that are 'dangerously pc' after that, etc.[/QUOTE] how could something be 'dangerously pc'? :v

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52590746]how could something be 'dangerously pc'? :v[/QUOTE] i don't know, but that's the narrative trump and his administration is pushing [I]right now.[/I] it may be currently getting shat all over but that mindset/ideology was powerful enough to get trump elected in the first place, who knows what ridiculous shit may be claimed by future alt-righters or similar ideologies and used to shut down websites en masse using precedents like this it's an extremely specific situation to occur, but my point is that i'm personally pretty hardline on how free i think the internet should be, and i encourage companies to be as hands-off with their content as they possibly can or are willing to be.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52590683]Difference between Nazi ideology and Sharia law being that there is nothing inherently violent or oppressive about Sharia it. Sharia law is little different than Canon Law -- it's simply a code of ethics and behavior that practicioners of the faith should adhere to in order to be closer to God. Many of the tenants are quite vague, and while some of them definitely seem a bit fucked by modern standards, they aren't practiced in the world at large anymore. The nasty shit comes in with the extreme interpretations and/or implementations seen in specific fundamentalist/zealot cultures, such as those under theocratic dictatorships/monarchies, tribal structures, and extremist groups. Nazi ideology, however, literally cannot exist when separated from violence, abuse, and oppression. It is the cornerstone of the philosophy.[/QUOTE] the history of the abrahamic religions is one of violence and conquest. the triumph of monotheism can literally never be separated from violence, abuse, and oppression. that's just back then, in our era besides fascism it's literally the only other major form of reaction to progressivism and modernity. As a result, it shouldn't come to any surprise that catholicism was a major source of third position thought (distributism or austrofascism), hitler admired islam and had a relationship with the palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and Arab nationalism has literally always been doing third way stuff. really liberal values don't exist all that much outside of western europe, so you can expect cultures outside of that to conflict with it. sharia law and nazism are equivalent in that regard, since we're talking arabic and continental/central european cultures, with germany (along with russia) having been a bastion of conservatism for basically its entire existence up to 1945 and the entirety of the middle east struggling with modernity since we started even using the word. literally when you're talking about the 'nasty shit' you're talking about sharia's original form and the political character of the middle east then and now. It makes me wonder what liberalized, reformed version of islam or an arab country you have in mind Also I think it's important to point out while we're dividing up islam to find the good and progressive parts of its community, there's a big tendency on the left in the west to describe anything from civic nationalism to libertarianism to the actual nazis as part of the same 'far right white male' phenomenon. This is while unironically describing any western reservations with islam as just conflating all of the sects and opinions of a billion people, just because they're all brown

[QUOTE=Conscript;52590858]the history of the abrahamic religions is one of violence and conquest. the triumph of monotheism can literally never be separated from violence, abuse, and oppression. that's just back then, in our era besides fascism it's literally the only other major form of reaction to progressivism and modernity. As a result, it shouldn't come to any surprise that catholicism was a major source of third position thought (distributism or austrofascism), hitler admired islam and had a relationship with the palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and Arab nationalism has literally always been doing third way stuff. really liberal values don't exist all that much outside of western europe, so you can expect cultures outside of that to conflict with it. sharia law and nazism are equivalent in that regard, since we're talking arabic and continental/central european cultures, with germany (along with russia) having been a bastion of conservatism for basically its entire existence up to 1945 and the entirety of the middle east struggling with modernity since we started even using the word. literally when you're talking about the 'nasty shit' you're talking about sharia's original form and the political character of the middle east then and now. It makes me wonder what liberalized, reformed version of islam or an arab country you have in mind Also I think it's important to point out while we're dividing up islam to find the good and progressive parts of its community, there's a big tendency on the left in the west to describe anything from civic nationalism to libertarianism to the actual nazis as part of the same 'far right white male' phenomenon. This is while unironically describing any western reservations with islam as just conflating all of the sects and opinions of a billion people, just because they're all brown[/QUOTE] "The left is stupid for generalizing things" says man who generalizes the left for the 500th time this month.

Few things: 1. Good on Them to try to stop Neo-Nazi, I mean there is intel that Breitbait and Infowars colluding with russian, remember the FBI investigating that? 2. I've noticed a portion of the Far Left, having a growing illiberalism problem, and basically wanting to expand hate speech definitions to things that shouldn't be hate speech. I'm trying not to generalize like Chonch here, because I know progressives that are sick and tired of some certain double standards like Christianity and Islam(For me Defend rights of Muslims, but be able to Criticize Islam). So once we get done fighting the Nazi's we need to figure out a balance,

Here's a good balance: Do you advocate mass violence, genocide, or attempt to convince people that your desire to commit criminal actions are 'beliefs' and thus protected speech? Fuck off. Do you not advocate the above? Here's your megaphone, please speak freely.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52587908]i don't see why we can't draw the line at "self professed nazi propaganda"[/QUOTE] because it's up for interpretation if someone puts up satire on the subject and it's taken seriously? this wasn't a good precedent. I guess it was a matter of time before something like this happened and we have started a decline of blatant censorship.

[QUOTE=Conscript;52590858]the history of the abrahamic religions is one of violence and conquest. the triumph of monotheism can literally never be separated from violence, abuse, and oppression. etc[/QUOTE] It also cannot be separated from religiously motivated acts of kindness and, at the time of their conception, a genuine attempt at bettering society in good heart, by proposing to men and women a set of ideals that would make their lives and the ones of those around them more tolerable than it was prior to their conversion. The fear-mongering, hateful aspect of most religions only start to appear some generations later when those who created it have passed away. In some cases like for Christianity it took centuries before they went into that whole "hell's full of red demons with pitchforks and they'll poke your ass if you don't go to Church and pay up your indulgences, fucker" phase. As for Islam, the original book is much more clean than most people think and the parts that are violent, awful or hateful are from the complementary works written by different people, and not every Imam (not even a majority of them, especially not in the western world) agrees to what they have to say because, unlike with the Quran, Islam doesn't obligate you to adhere to anything inside the hadith. Even the whole "it's always been ultraviolent and hateful to non-muslims" argument is quite bullshit considering its most violent doctrines have for the most part been founded in the 18th century. And while those were for the most part counter-movements to modernity and the spread of (notably European) ideals, Religion [I]isn't[/I] the only thing imparting progress, even before the rise of fascism. Economical reason and privileges are also firm reasons for some people to desire a strong status quo: the civil war was not fueled by religion but by the desire of the South to retain their power over an entire people, a power which provided them with a comfortable financial sitting and nice cushy lives. It can be argued that even the roman empire collapsed due to idleness with a lack of ability to adapt. A large part of US conservatism is not even religiously motivated but instead fueled by a staunch defense of the principles enacted by the founding fathers - there is hardly an religious talk involved in gun law discussions in the US, it's mostly about what's written in the constitution and why it should not change.

Ah yes, Only in America can you defend Nazism for the sake of defending your party affiliation. I wonder what our dead grandfathers, who most likely served in World War II think of today's political absurdity.

There are good, socially oriented intentions behind them. It's great when you get people to care about each other (even if it's on the basis of bring in the same in group) and civilize barbarians. Still, the morals are puritanical and repressive, and theology is basically window dressing for submission to autocratic rule. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing when what existed before conversion is pagan arab barbarians or the decadent romans, but there is something inherently violent, abusive, and oppressive about these religions as much as fascism. Both are ideas used to defend existing hierarchy, reject egalitarianism or even individualism, and keep society from imploding from divisions. Both are used as conservative wedges against the rising tides of liberalism and socialism starting in the late 19th century. Personally I think the foundation of monotheistic religion and modern ideologies like fascism is accelerating economic development starting with agriculture creating property ownership, cities, and classes. Violence in the form of a state is inherent to maintaining that. Our social systems are so complex I think something like religion evolves to explain and maintain them. Who is to say islam or whatever didn't, as a response to geopolitical interests of a worldly caliphate, logically evolve to 'be ultraviolent or hate non believers?' In which case, why should it have a place in the liberalized west if it's not neutered by enlightenment reform like christianity? Why is this forum's biggest liberal jumping through hoops to explain special exceptions for (sometimes ill defined) fascists? I think the best answer is the obvious one, and it has nothing to do with the logic being BDA put forward. The nationalists are a much greater evil simply because they are much greater threat to progressivism, it entails native whites rejecting the left. Also, no liberal wants to be far right by association for criticizing how reactionary and incompatible with their own values islam is. Probably the biggest ideological excess of today's left is how much of it went from opposing America's historically unusual (for a western country, even marx noted it) religious conservative character to having a strange relationship with sunni conservatives, as epitomized by Linda Sarsour. The change is down to switching gears to act as ideological window dressing for globalization and the systemic need for free flow of labor and capital which nationalism impedes, as well the left trying to legitimize itself by intersecting with anyone historically on the losing side of colonialism, slavery, or the original voting franchise (white male property owners). Also, I don't get why people accuse me of generalizing the left when I use the word 'tendency' to avoid doing so, and doing so I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. The fact is progressives might actually be the biggest sectarians and puritans out there. I don't think there's a movement that politically audits parts of society (famously including the 'gamer' subculture this forum represents), let alone its own ranks, for ideological uniformity as much as today's liberals and socialists do. It's part of a cult - like obsession of being on the right side of history. At least the conservatives just want to be left alone to their little homogenous leave it to beaver communities, leftists are moral crusaders.

How do you figure the right aren't moral crusaders? Do you figure that by actively ignoring all the things the right virtue signals about? Gay rights just screams this out loud but you're too busy ignoring it and generalizing the left to actually analyze "Your side"

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52591266]How do you figure the right aren't moral crusaders? Do you figure that by actively ignoring all the things the right virtue signals about? Gay rights just screams this out loud but you're too busy ignoring it and generalizing the left to actually analyze "Your side"[/QUOTE] I don't oppose gay marriage or identify as a conservative, but at least they argue for it on the basis of their local state, community, or business having the right to decide on the matter. It can and should be fought against on that level. The left just wields the federal government like a bludgeon and has no regard for regional diversity, ironically. It means we end up with all the big money in the blue coasts and cities deciding for the heartland, which contributes to class and therefore (because it's america) racial divisions. What chiefly enables trump and the alt right (and this is why the left links them together) is the arrogant, condescending, and insufferably self righteous attitude implicit in trendy, bourgeois liberals appointing themselves the role of dragging the red states kicking and screaming into the future. With social conservatives, if they are true classical liberals, I can just move.

So you just make an arbitrary and feel good distinction about who is and isn't a moral crusader

isn't a private company refusing service freedom of expression as well?

[QUOTE=Conscript;52591299]I don't oppose gay marriage or identify as a conservative, but at least they argue for it on the basis of their local state, community, or business having the right to decide on the matter. It can and should be fought against on that level. The left just wields the federal government like a bludgeon and has no regard for regional diversity, ironically. It means we end up with all the big money in the blue coasts and cities deciding for the heartland, which contributes to class and therefore (because it's america) racial divisions. What chiefly enables trump and the alt right (and this is why the left links them together) is the arrogant, condescending, and insufferably self righteous attitude implicit in trendy, bourgeois liberals appointing themselves the role of dragging the red states kicking and screaming into the future. With social conservatives, if they are true classical liberals, I can just move.[/QUOTE] "Regional diversity" is no excuse for policy that crushes basic human, civil, and statutory rights. The nebulous left is wielding federal power in the way that federal power is MEANT to be wielded: to protect the basic rights of US citizens. "It's just our culture" is not a valid defense for the oppression of minorities, and I find the argument that it is to especially hypocritical coming the person arguing that the religious practices and beliefs of Islamic extremists must be the yardstick that we measure ALL Muslims by.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52591934]"Regional diversity" is no excuse for policy that crushes basic human, civil, and statutory rights. The nebulous left is wielding federal power in the way that federal power is MEANT to be wielded: to protect the basic rights of US citizens. "It's just our culture" is not a valid defense for the oppression of minorities, and I find the argument that it is to especially hypocritical coming the person arguing that the religious practices and beliefs of Islamic extremists must be the yardstick that we measure ALL Muslims by.[/QUOTE] Right, whatever. The power of the federal government is a recent phenomenon as much as is the concentration of wealth, the two can be correlated well actually. It has nothing to do with protecting rights, nobody is seriously threatening to bring us back to Jim Crow, gas the jews or whatever. Identical with the rise of the left is the decline of the middle class and localism, the converse increase in political and economic inequality, as well as erosion of the nation-state. Of course nobody spawned from that cares about regional cultural diversity, local governments, and private property rights. These things afford lifestyles and communities the left finds reactionary. None of what you said has anything to do with the claim that the left is the moral crusader in this situation, and probably the most puritanical and sectarian (having the most splits and political audits of rank and file) ideology in the west outside of fascism. Beyond that its ideological aggressions, that social justice agitation beyond just legal equality which any conservative can get on board with, is producing 'nazis' (trump supporters, as well as brexiteers, governments like that in Poland, Hungary, russia, or turkey) who recognize the left's self-appointed, paternalistic role over middle america and the white working class, how it holds it responsible for America's ills chiefly its racial disparities and shaming it, and takes advantage of world getting smaller through technology, free flow of goods and labor, and growth of supranational states like the EU to shape culture. I think any right wing nutjob is probaby thankful. In the last couple years the left has done more to foster white racial thinking (and define whiteness, destroying all the work to erase that concept), piss off working class types, and validate authoritarianism by being so itself. While Americans poll supporting preservation of confederate statues and reduction of immigration, the left is unrepentant. It can't even find a moral equivalency between communist antifa and nazis, again erasing all the work done to establish that concept, if twitter is representative of anything. Elsewhere, power is being used to punish local nationalists for refusing refugees. You don't actually deny the left does any of this, just apologize for authoritarianism and elitism using false social justice and humanitarian rhetoric. Really, with that insufferably arrogant attitude I can easily see why some on the left regard their own people as the problem in their democracy, an impediment to strong arm and brown bait rather than compromise with, or that it's the native citizen that needs to integrate. Also, don't misrepresent me. You claimed a bloody monotheistic religion like all others, islam, has no essential oppressive components unlike nazism (and frankly I'm unsure to what extent that word in your mind applies past the obvious subject of the thread to different right wing ideas, which makes this conversation difficult) to explain your double standard which is seen in wider handling of Islamic or left wing vs right wing terrorism. I don't think I need to remind you that the death of secular Arab nationalism, as chiefly championed by liberals and (now dead) neocons, and our relations with gulf monarchies have fostered a revival of sunni conservatism, sectarianism, and tribalism in comparison to the cold war era. The arab spring proves this. You literally identified these things when saying only extreme interpretations of sharia reside there.

Talk about insufferably arrogant. You can repeat that the left are the only moral crusaders but your horse blinders to the literal moral crusade the right wing you're so eager to defend despite "distancing" yourself from are not going to be something you can just slap on all of us with a few lines of repeated rhetoric.

In this specific case as some Libertarians might say, "Tis how the Market wills it to be". Although they'd probably say it in a less pretentious manner.

[QUOTE=Zerfenus;52588267]Well, the EFF isn't wrong about the issue, as it is one hell of a slippery slope to slide down once you start.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Hilton;52587885]It's absolutely a slippery slope for companies to decide what you can and can't say, but I'm not even sure what the solution would be. You can't force companies to allow everything, they're not a public service, but if they did decide to start censoring more and more stuff there's nothing we could do about slipping away from free speech on the internet.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52587908]i don't see why we can't draw the line at "self professed nazi propaganda"[/QUOTE] To add to Mr. Scorpio's point, people really do need to realize that the line is drawn where the line is drawn Legalizing gender-free marriage doesn't allow child rape and bestiality to just magically become a socially acceptable thing Legalizing weed doesn't suddenly mean meth can be obtained at your local drugstore for only $19.99 When you ban someone from twitter for actively harassing users that isn't a matter of censorship So its like, how does silencing literal Nazi propaganda threaten free speech? You can't apply "First they came for the nazi's.... but I wasn't one of them" logic to this. How is this a slippery slope but the above things aren't? if you can't draw the line here, where else can the line not be drawn? This isn't shutting down a website for being "globalist left biased" or permabanning someone from facebook for being a trump supporter. This is shutting down a self proclaimed Nazi website.