> Similarly, the fact that a hate speech law can be abused is not a good argument; plenty of laws can be abused, including, say, anti-terrorism laws.
False equivalency, red herring, and two wrongs don't make a right. Laws can be written across a continuum of vagueness and precision. Laws must be continually updated and oversight assured so that policy underpinning is implemented in good faith and appropriately. Crafting particular words for a law alone is insufficient to accomplish the presupposed objectives. The real world doesn't work like that.
> What makes you think the mentors will be any less susceptible to radicalization than the people they are mentoring?
Did your professor allow this kind of crap to fly?
> This is an argument for doing something
You proved my point for me. Tragedy of the Commons makes everyone's responsibility no one's responsibility. No one else is likely to do something just because you talk about it but don't walk the walk. "Be the change you seek" because waiting for Godot is a terrible idea. Take ownership yourself and do it.
> Debate does nothing for the first category.
I suggest taking another look at history [0]; ethos, pathos, and logos; and, finally, hate deradicalizers, often former believers.
0: Rhetoric was a popular form of live entertainment for centuries, if not more. "The Most Famous Man in America: The Biography of Henry Ward Beecher" - Derby Applegate (2006) re: touring abolitionism speech performer, and his sister's book likely being one of the final proverbial straws that broke the camel's back regarding the Civil War.
Saudi Arabia, regardless of many other concerns in the Kingdom, has an entire department in the MoI that has processed thousands of now former Jihadi's. [1]
1: https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/saudi-deradicalization-expe...
Dereck Black changed his mind after 2 years of Shibbat dinners. [2]
2: https://bunewsservice.com/can-a-white-supremacist-be-deradic...
> speeches, texts, videos, music, etc.
content
> hobble the spread of their ideas
Cartoons of Muhammed plus the Quran is better than burning and banning the Quran, because that reinforces an adversarial and underground dynamic rather than dialogue. Who decides which ideas are "good" or "bad?" You? Verizon? Dept of Safe Ideas? Censorship/hobbling powers never end well. "Absolute power..."
I think I'm done here because you've stopped listening and went off into the weeds rather than be honest.