Inciting violence vs freedom of speech

This is turning into a virtue signalling circle jerk.

The one quote provided is nothing near incitement violence, in the legal sense. I'm now in the icky position of defending Daily Sturmer because I believe in the First Amendment and this latest campaign against one web site feels so contrived and politically correct. Yes yes, I know that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Namecheap or godaddy or cloudflare. But this has gotten downright silly.

As another commenter noted, these large companies have no compunction hosting/registering domains for sites that actually do incite violence and actively ruin people's lives... like jihadist groups or ripoff report, a site that makes it an active business model to defame people online, destroy lives and careers, and then extort people to remove that content.

This whole daily sturmer campaign has gotten to the point of being nothing more than a way for companies to pretend like they care or want to prevent a type of speech they don't like, but in reality is picking on one site that is mild in comparison to the other things these companies tacitly approve of.

Edit to add a link that apropos: The Seductive Appeal of the "Nazi Exception" https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t...

This claim keeps coming up that "hate speech" isn't allowed and isn't legal. It is kind of funny to read since legally no such thing as "hate speech" exists. SCOTUS has carved out only a few exceptions to free speech. The one relevant here is "fighting words" and it doesn't apply since saying "all $X-attributed people should be killed" is LEGAL. It does not CAUSE immediate harm. But, saying that to an armed angry crowd MAY be illegal. Websites, at least how SCOTUS saw it, cannot by definition be fighting words and thus anything you say on a website would be protected under 1st amendment

This doesn't matter much, of course, because the amendment only applies to government shutting you up, not a private entity.

BUT, I hate how all of these bozos keep making the excuse that these websites wouldn't even be protected by 1st amendment so they can be banned from the internet. This article does this too. It is annoying since this basic premise itself is wrong.

I'm pretty sure that statement they quoted is vile and disgusting, but certainly not incitement to violence as the courts understand it.

Of course, Namecheap can probably choose their customers however they like according to their own TOS. But don't delete someone off the Internet who is saying things you don't like and spend the whole post patting yourself on the back for following principles of free speech.

I think it's pretty simple -- if you don't believe that Nazis should be able to voice their vile and disgusting opinions openly, you don't believe in free speech. If you don't believe that Nazis should get to organize a nonviolent protest, then you don't believe in freedom of assembly.

The Washington Post featured an article 'Who are the antifa' [1] by Mark Bray who is the author of "The Anti-Fascist Handbook" which explained, "Antifascists argue that after the horrors of chattel slavery and the Holocaust, physical violence against white supremacists is both ethically justifiable and strategically effective."

Of course we see how effective it is, because defending the bedrock principles of freedom of speech and assembly when the speakers are Nazis now apparently puts you at risk of being labeled a Nazi sympathizer / white supremacist / racist yourself.

I'm not sure exactly when it became impossible to have an adult conversation on the matter. When did it become impossible to understand that a protester can represent abhorrent viewpoints without it being OK to throw bags of urine and paint at them? That a protest can turn violent and even deadly without being able to then condemn every single protester that was present? And that we should not be celebrating, but in fact be very worried if not outraged, that private parties who have gained superuser access to parts of the internet through their course of business are now leveraging that power to police content they find personally offensive, or which they takedown for PR reasons to appeal to a populist mob.

[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/...

Quote from https://blog.namecheap.com/we-say-no-to-sopa/

"Why are we against the proposed SOPA legislation? It’s very simple; at Namecheap, we believe in internet freedom.

When you register a domain name, you can do anything you wish with it within the confines of the law."

You find how much you believe in your principles, when they lead to outcomes you don't like. Given their actions now, namecheap's SOPA opposition now sounds like just a cheap publicity trick they did to distinguish themselves from GoDaddy.

As someone who is facinated by what is happening I spend a decent amount of time spelunking in the dark web.

The Neo-Nazis are not that upset by this. They want to use the same tools to boycott the Zionist and Jews. It's actually one of the many things the Alt-Left and the Alt-Right agree on.

In addition we're making them into martyrs. Banning and suppression was counter productive on the original Nazis and it is counter productive here.

This should be we'll know by those who read civics. It is even codified in the book Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky. It makes me wonder what books Antifa are reading as they are doing all of the wrong things.

I get that it feels like we're (non nazis) are winning but we're not and this is isn't helping.

>"It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in mathematics to understand that White men + pride + organization = Jews being stuffed into ovens."

To me, out of context, that reads as anti- White men, not anti-Semitic. Or at least ambiguous. Certainly not an outright endorsement as such.

I haven't read the material, and I'm sure it's as hateful as they say. But as their entire argument is predicated on how beyond the pale that statement is, and if "the site spends considerable effort demonizing Asians, Blacks, Mexicans, etc" - they could probably have found a better example to make their point.

Why are registrars doing the policy decisions when its the registries has the mandate to control and policy the domain name system?

If IANA decide that .com address should not be used for sites like this, then at least it would be their decision to make. They also already thought about how to handle this type of questions, and drawn the lines where the consensus says they should be. If people want to change them, the process to do so is likely well documented.

I guess I won't be down-voted for posting this, right?

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

All these companies tripping over each other to ban DailyStormer while at the same time they won't take a position against similar sites that are just as unquestionably immoral/illegal as DailyStormer (Torrent sites, ISIS sites). One might be forgiven for thinking that this sudden moral awakening of 'Big Internet' is nothing more than a selfish PR stunt.

Seems like the proponents of net neutrality have a dilemma on their hands.

There are neo-nazi shows on cable access channels, so I'd think the same legal reasoning applies to the internet.

>: Daily Stormer: “Summer of Hate Edition.” The site spends considerable effort demonizing Asians, Blacks, Mexicans, etc.

I am an Indian and every single "crossover" indian youtube video is filled with "Designated Shitting streets [1]" comments. I really don't give a shit( pardon the pun) about those comments. Do majority of "Asians, Blacks, Mexicans" in America want this kind of censorship on their behalf ? Really curious.

1. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/designated-shitting-streets-po...