20 ms·

I don't have any sympathy for the Daily Stormer. I just don't see where this is stopping. What else needs to be taken down? /pol/? Who about Breitbart? Or mayb

by chvid 9y ago

I don't have any sympathy for the Daily Stormer. I just don't see where this is stopping. What else needs to be taken down? /pol/? Who about Breitbart? Or maybe some 2nd WW Nazi propaganda? Or something from the US civil war? You guys seem to be ok with this very slippery slope being assessed by random private companies accountable to who knows. And then you have the nerve to call us who believes that limits of free speech should be set by courts and open process "nazis"?!

Akujin 9y ago
If Breitbart or /pol/ are hosting discussions in the open between known Nazis or people who are advocating to take terrorist actions and they do not moderate and delete these things then yea they actually should be shut down. We would not tolerate this from Al Qaeda or with child porn so I really don't understand the problem. Nazism has caused orders of magnitude more suffering in the history of man than either of the previous things I mentioned.
- troisx 9y ago
  Well communism caused even more suffering, so should we shut down every communist site as well?
  - jononor 9y ago
    And christian sites? Christianity caused much suffering, christening whole nations by the sword, the crusades etc.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      Not to mention colonialism, imperialism and corporatism.
  - croon 9y ago
    > If Breitbart or /pol/ are hosting discussions [...] advocating to take terrorist actions and they do not moderate [...] they actually should be shut down. > [...] shut down every communist site as well? And you completely disregarded the conditions why?
  - losteric 9y ago
    Any website that promotes terrorism and hateful discrimination should be opposed. That doesn't fit Communism, but that's the definition of Nazis.
    - mantas 9y ago
      Yeah, Communists love everyone regardless their views or education or property or line of work.
      - losteric 9y ago
        disagreement != discrimination. Plus, the ideology does not encourage domestic terrorism.
        mantas 9y ago
        You mean communists don't discriminate people they don't agree with? Take a look at any communist-ish state what happens when they get a chance to discriminate said people. As for domestic terrorism, when was the last leftist riot?
        losteric 9y ago
        No, again, discrimination != disagreement. Communism, as an ideology, disagrees with capitalism... and capitalism equally disagrees with communism. However neither ideology discriminates against the other - a capitalist company will employ a communist if the individual is a productive employee, and a communist commune will welcome a capitalist if they strengthen the commune. Individuals within both groups do advocate for violence against the other, but the ideologies do not. Contrast that with Nazism or literal Islamism - ideologies that explicitly espouses violence and discrimination against "the other".
        mantas 9y ago
        > if they strengthen the commune That's the key part. Either you're one and fit the narrative, or you gotta GTFO in communism. You couldn't come to communist commune and establish a company or bank or invest money or whatever like in capitalist community. It's not like you could come in and own personal property as in capitalism either. The most you could do would be a closet capitalist and keep your ideas to yourself. But you could be a closet gay in nazi country too. When communists came to my country, it wasn't pretty. Either become one and dropped property if you had anything worthwhile or you were fucked. To be fair, I don't know how else could they have attempted to install communism. But communism doesn't tolerate different ideologies on the same soil. And today's communists do discriminate capitalists on day-to-day affairs. E.g. disregard of private property. Wether it's calling a gay person names or spitting on rich man's car, both are discriminating people that don't fit one's narrative. Ultimately, if either person got into power, they'd do harm to the other person or at least kick them out from the community. Of course, somewhat personal action feels worse than doing something to property. But ultimately it's the same - discrimination based on one's ideas.
imbur 9y ago
Daily stormer, pol, and breitbart are all free to find another web host/CDN or start their own. There is no slippery slope with one business refusing to do business with another one. The business does not need to be accountable to anyone, because they have no requirement to host the daily stormer in the first place.
- jmnicolas 9y ago
  So a baker could refuse to make a cake for homosexuals then ?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - darpa_escapee 9y ago
    What's with everyone bending over backwards to equate Nazis with non-genocidal, non-terrorist groups of people? Given the chance, gay people will try to live their lives in peace. Given the chance, Nazis will try to exterminate billions of people. Nazis haven't been systematically persecuted and killed for millennia. Ironically, gay people have been systematically persecuted and murdered by Nazis. Such persecution is why there are protected classes, which some governments recognize gay people as belonging to.
    - ckastner 9y ago
      > What's with everyone bending over backwards to equivocate Nazis with non-genocidal, non-terrorist groups of people? That's not what is happening, as I understood it. The grandparent simply refuted the general argument that "The business does not need to be accountable to anyone" by providing a counterexample whereby unconditionally following this argument can lead to an unwanted outcome. In other words: it's not that simple.
      - jmnicolas 9y ago
        Thank you for explaining it better than I could (I'm not an English native speaker ;-).
nemothekid 9y ago
>You guys seem to be ok with this very slippery slope being assessed by random private companies accountable to who knows. To me its strange someone would consider closing down /pol/ a "slippery slope". I am amazed that someone would consider 4chan a moral compass for the type of things their admins should put up with. moot has closed down /pol/ for this very reason in the past with even less "political" awareness than the CEO of cloudflare. 4Chan is "free-speech" not through effort but through negligence & apathy. moot shut down /pol/ (aka /n/) before, twice, on a whim because he didn't like the content. It's not the first time it has devolved into nazi-fetishism. While 4chan has the reputation for being a seedy place, moot has taken stands and banned people and conversions from 4chan (for example most recently gamergate on /v/) for reasons that can be boiled down to that he didn't like it (mods of 4chan have done this as well, such as no Naruto on /a/). The current iteration of /pol/ has likely been allowed to live through negligence - moot is no longer involved with 4chan, and the new owner hiroyuki has been as absent as moot during his VC startup days. Simply put 4chan never had any moderator accountability (see Rule 9 of the internet). In conclusion, the notion that this is a "slippery slope" is nonsense. "Free speech" on the internet never really existed, the current view points that exist only exist because their operators have never bothered to flex their muscles - and the reason they haven't has rarely been because of some moral high ground. At the end of the day there is plenty of "reasonable" content YouTube won't host for you, and that Facebook will kick you for. If you are concerned about being silenced by a corporate vendor, then choose your partners wisely. If none will support you - then self fund. Free Speech doesn't mean the NYT is obligated to print your content, only that the government wont stop circulation of your newspaper. If you can't acquire the resources to start your own print, then tough luck.
- abalone 9y ago
  > If you are concerned about being silenced by a corporate vendor, then choose your partners wisely. The issue here is more nuanced. It's about any site on the Internet being censored by a mob. That's why the YouTube or Facebook analogies don't hold. You could always host the content yourself. But DDoS can knock out any unprotected host anywhere. And DDoS protection isn't really something you can DIY. So the issue here is not about being silenced by a corporate vendor. It's about being silenced, period, wherever you host.
willvarfar 9y ago
CloudFare served DailyStormer for years. Then DailyStormer says CloudFare are secretly nazis. Then CloudFare say "no we don't, goodbye". If DailyStormer hadn't been so stupid, and had never claimed CloudFare was anything other than neutral, then they would still be served? Stupid own goal DailyStormer. The censorship and 'line' seems to be not what you say or incite against others, but what you say about CloudFare.
- CaptainZapp 9y ago
  The censorship and 'line' seems to be not what you say or incite against others, but what you say about CloudFare Well, sure. But if you shit on my living room carpet I'll also show you the door. As I think is my right.
  - autotypo 9y ago
    He peed on my rug!
- jrs95 9y ago
  I think it was probably a tongue in cheek statement (since a lot of people would have accused them of being secret Nazis over this eventually) that Cloudflare took seriously, or at least saw as a good excuse to shut them down to appease some people while positioning themselves as strong supporters of free speech on the internet at the same time.
  - mathw 9y ago
    Doesn't matter if it was tongue in cheek, it was still said, and that's not the kind of thing CloudFlare really need associated with their name. Of course it's going to be dragged through the mud anyway now, but at least it'll be for something they actually did.
- ufmace 9y ago
  > Then DailyStormer says CloudFare are secretly nazis. According to CloudFare... Can't seem to find exactly where they say this. Their platforms on which to say things seem to be dropping like flies here. Not saying they didn't claim that, but that's one of the problems with taking away someone's speech entirely - your only "source" for knowing what they have actually said is the claims of the people who just shut them down.
jamespo 9y ago
Maybe you should be the one who chooses what a private company can and can't do? As for the slippery slope arguments, come on.
mbrock 9y ago
I'm curious, if you imagine a possible historical situation, let's say a German business owner in the 1930s that took a stance of not offering services to Nazi organizations, does that appear commendable, or bad in the same "slippery slope" way that you apply in the present situation? It seems to me that such a business owner would seem in hindsight to have been acting virtuously, and it seems that businesses that did in fact offer services to e.g. the Nazi party are now tarnished morally because of that.
- meric 9y ago
  > It seems to me that such a business owner would seem in hindsight to have been acting virtuously, No it wouldn't - There is a large percentage of population joining Nazi parties for convenience, for their career or even out of fear. Are you going to deny them the food you sell from your shop? If they are Nazi's, are they still not human beings deserving to access food in the market? Does someone being a member of the Nazi party mean we can let them starve to death? Shoot them and push them into a trench even? The moment you dehumanise vast swathes of the population, you've already lost and dropped to the level of "Nazi's". It's not wise to let your enemies turn you into them.
  - mbrock 9y ago
    Well, I might ask whether you think there is a difference between selling food to an individual who happens to be a member of the Nazi party, and catering for a Nazi party event?
    - meric 9y ago
      The bottom line is: Am I going to let a man starve himself to death while I have a shop full of food? No.
      - mbrock 9y ago
        What if that man is, for example, threatening your family or friends?
mirimir 9y ago
That is indeed a tough question. And to Cloudflare's credit, they discuss it at some length. I'm quite impressed. But in any case, it's Cloudflare's business, and so it's Cloudflare's decision to make. What concerns me more are censorship mechanisms involving DNS and BGP games. Which the US has been quite fond of using, to take down what it considers to be illegal content. That's a vulnerability of the Internet itself, reflecting continuing US dominance. So hey, we have Tor and other overlay networks. Edit: And just to be clear, I'm a communitarian anarchist. I'm not at all sympathetic to fascists. But I do oppose all censorship.
moomin 9y ago
Congratulations, you've just employed the Sex With Ducks argument. Remember before employing slippery slope arguments to explain why we haven't already fallen down the slope when we banned terrorist websites. And taking down The Daily Stormer was speech. If you want to regulate that kind of speech, it's your right to say so. But don't pretend you're supporting the First Amendment when you do so.
- notahacker 9y ago
  Don't pretend you're supporting the First Amendment - a restriction on governments making laws against press freedom - when you use it to compel companies to assist in the dissemination of Nazi propaganda against their will. It's not a defence of political freedoms to compel people - rhetorically or otherwise - to disseminate messages that appall them; it's a grotesque imposition upon their political freedom.
intended 9y ago
People sitting on the fences talking about slippery slopes are only ceding space to people pushing the conversation down. I'm sorry but The space to sit idly and think about it is gone. All of society is on the slope because America didn't realize that some points are raised not to discuss, but to tie down discourse and keep logic at bay. Leaving the field open for emotion and lazy logic to defeat whoever remains. There's rules to how this is done, and they have little to do with facts but everything to do with owning the communication channel.
Asdfbla 9y ago
Many European countries (like Germany etc.) have operated with free speech restrictions since the end of WW2 and the slippery slope that is always brought up never materialized. Slippery slope arguments are only valid if you believe that your jurisdiction doesn't have proper rule of law. Otherwise experience, at least in European countries, showed that courts are very well capable of recognizing the importance of free speech even for tasteless and hateful speech.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- bloobloobloo 9y ago
  > the slippery slope that is always brought up never materialized. Very true. Well, except maybe for that one time when Germany became an open-air rape camp under the noses of police who did nothing for fear of being accused of racism. That kind of sucked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaul... And, oh yeah, there was that time they threw a lawyer in jail for defending a Holocaust denier. http://www.dw.com/en/german-neo-nazi-lawyer-sentenced-for-denying-holocaust/a-3058271 http://www.dw.com/en/german-neo-nazi-lawyer-sentenced-for-de... But otherwise, sure, unqualified success. Great example.
  - Asdfbla 9y ago
    I have nothing to say really about your first point where you do nothing but speculate about police motives, but the second one doesn't prove anything either. The second case is not a slippery slope because it does precisely what's codified in German law, nothing more and nothing less. The lawyer herself denied the holocaust and that's punishable in Germany. So the law was correctly applied. That has absolutely nothing to do with the slippery slope discussion.
    - 9y ago
estomagordo 9y ago
Feel free to feel outraged when someone you do have sympathy for gets taken down then. Until that time comes, good riddance to Daily Stormer, you lot of motherfucking nazis.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
>What else needs to be taken down? It would be interesting to see how much of this applies to sub sects of Islam, namely the sub sects that promote violence or which promote child marriage. My big issue here isn't the logic itself, but the selective application of it. For a similar related topic, whose statues should we have up? What is the objective criteria by which we should decide if a statue is allowed (on public property/at a memorial) and will it be applied to all statues?

by chvid 9y ago

Akujin 9y ago

If Breitbart or /pol/ are hosting discussions in the open between known Nazis or people who are advocating to take terrorist actions and they do not moderate and delete these things then yea they actually should be shut down. We would not tolerate this from Al Qaeda or with child porn so I really don't understand the problem. Nazism has caused orders of magnitude more suffering in the history of man than either of the previous things I mentioned.

troisx 9y ago
Well communism caused even more suffering, so should we shut down every communist site as well?
- jononor 9y ago
  And christian sites? Christianity caused much suffering, christening whole nations by the sword, the crusades etc.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Not to mention colonialism, imperialism and corporatism.
- croon 9y ago
  > If Breitbart or /pol/ are hosting discussions [...] advocating to take terrorist actions and they do not moderate [...] they actually should be shut down. > [...] shut down every communist site as well? And you completely disregarded the conditions why?
- losteric 9y ago
  Any website that promotes terrorism and hateful discrimination should be opposed. That doesn't fit Communism, but that's the definition of Nazis.
  - mantas 9y ago
    Yeah, Communists love everyone regardless their views or education or property or line of work.
    - losteric 9y ago
      disagreement != discrimination. Plus, the ideology does not encourage domestic terrorism.
      - mantas 9y ago
        You mean communists don't discriminate people they don't agree with? Take a look at any communist-ish state what happens when they get a chance to discriminate said people. As for domestic terrorism, when was the last leftist riot?
        losteric 9y ago
        No, again, discrimination != disagreement. Communism, as an ideology, disagrees with capitalism... and capitalism equally disagrees with communism. However neither ideology discriminates against the other - a capitalist company will employ a communist if the individual is a productive employee, and a communist commune will welcome a capitalist if they strengthen the commune. Individuals within both groups do advocate for violence against the other, but the ideologies do not. Contrast that with Nazism or literal Islamism - ideologies that explicitly espouses violence and discrimination against "the other".
        mantas 9y ago
        > if they strengthen the commune That's the key part. Either you're one and fit the narrative, or you gotta GTFO in communism. You couldn't come to communist commune and establish a company or bank or invest money or whatever like in capitalist community. It's not like you could come in and own personal property as in capitalism either. The most you could do would be a closet capitalist and keep your ideas to yourself. But you could be a closet gay in nazi country too. When communists came to my country, it wasn't pretty. Either become one and dropped property if you had anything worthwhile or you were fucked. To be fair, I don't know how else could they have attempted to install communism. But communism doesn't tolerate different ideologies on the same soil. And today's communists do discriminate capitalists on day-to-day affairs. E.g. disregard of private property. Wether it's calling a gay person names or spitting on rich man's car, both are discriminating people that don't fit one's narrative. Ultimately, if either person got into power, they'd do harm to the other person or at least kick them out from the community. Of course, somewhat personal action feels worse than doing something to property. But ultimately it's the same - discrimination based on one's ideas.

imbur 9y ago

Daily stormer, pol, and breitbart are all free to find another web host/CDN or start their own. There is no slippery slope with one business refusing to do business with another one. The business does not need to be accountable to anyone, because they have no requirement to host the daily stormer in the first place.

jmnicolas 9y ago
So a baker could refuse to make a cake for homosexuals then ?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- darpa_escapee 9y ago
  What's with everyone bending over backwards to equate Nazis with non-genocidal, non-terrorist groups of people? Given the chance, gay people will try to live their lives in peace. Given the chance, Nazis will try to exterminate billions of people. Nazis haven't been systematically persecuted and killed for millennia. Ironically, gay people have been systematically persecuted and murdered by Nazis. Such persecution is why there are protected classes, which some governments recognize gay people as belonging to.
  - ckastner 9y ago
    > What's with everyone bending over backwards to equivocate Nazis with non-genocidal, non-terrorist groups of people? That's not what is happening, as I understood it. The grandparent simply refuted the general argument that "The business does not need to be accountable to anyone" by providing a counterexample whereby unconditionally following this argument can lead to an unwanted outcome. In other words: it's not that simple.
    - jmnicolas 9y ago
      Thank you for explaining it better than I could (I'm not an English native speaker ;-).

nemothekid 9y ago

>You guys seem to be ok with this very slippery slope being assessed by random private companies accountable to who knows. To me its strange someone would consider closing down /pol/ a "slippery slope". I am amazed that someone would consider 4chan a moral compass for the type of things their admins should put up with. moot has closed down /pol/ for this very reason in the past with even less "political" awareness than the CEO of cloudflare. 4Chan is "free-speech" not through effort but through negligence & apathy. moot shut down /pol/ (aka /n/) before, twice, on a whim because he didn't like the content. It's not the first time it has devolved into nazi-fetishism. While 4chan has the reputation for being a seedy place, moot has taken stands and banned people and conversions from 4chan (for example most recently gamergate on /v/) for reasons that can be boiled down to that he didn't like it (mods of 4chan have done this as well, such as no Naruto on /a/). The current iteration of /pol/ has likely been allowed to live through negligence - moot is no longer involved with 4chan, and the new owner hiroyuki has been as absent as moot during his VC startup days. Simply put 4chan never had any moderator accountability (see Rule 9 of the internet). In conclusion, the notion that this is a "slippery slope" is nonsense. "Free speech" on the internet never really existed, the current view points that exist only exist because their operators have never bothered to flex their muscles - and the reason they haven't has rarely been because of some moral high ground. At the end of the day there is plenty of "reasonable" content YouTube won't host for you, and that Facebook will kick you for. If you are concerned about being silenced by a corporate vendor, then choose your partners wisely. If none will support you - then self fund. Free Speech doesn't mean the NYT is obligated to print your content, only that the government wont stop circulation of your newspaper. If you can't acquire the resources to start your own print, then tough luck.

abalone 9y ago
> If you are concerned about being silenced by a corporate vendor, then choose your partners wisely. The issue here is more nuanced. It's about any site on the Internet being censored by a mob. That's why the YouTube or Facebook analogies don't hold. You could always host the content yourself. But DDoS can knock out any unprotected host anywhere. And DDoS protection isn't really something you can DIY. So the issue here is not about being silenced by a corporate vendor. It's about being silenced, period, wherever you host.

willvarfar 9y ago

CloudFare served DailyStormer for years. Then DailyStormer says CloudFare are secretly nazis. Then CloudFare say "no we don't, goodbye". If DailyStormer hadn't been so stupid, and had never claimed CloudFare was anything other than neutral, then they would still be served? Stupid own goal DailyStormer. The censorship and 'line' seems to be not what you say or incite against others, but what you say about CloudFare.

CaptainZapp 9y ago
The censorship and 'line' seems to be not what you say or incite against others, but what you say about CloudFare Well, sure. But if you shit on my living room carpet I'll also show you the door. As I think is my right.
- autotypo 9y ago
  He peed on my rug!
jrs95 9y ago
I think it was probably a tongue in cheek statement (since a lot of people would have accused them of being secret Nazis over this eventually) that Cloudflare took seriously, or at least saw as a good excuse to shut them down to appease some people while positioning themselves as strong supporters of free speech on the internet at the same time.
- mathw 9y ago
  Doesn't matter if it was tongue in cheek, it was still said, and that's not the kind of thing CloudFlare really need associated with their name. Of course it's going to be dragged through the mud anyway now, but at least it'll be for something they actually did.
ufmace 9y ago
> Then DailyStormer says CloudFare are secretly nazis. According to CloudFare... Can't seem to find exactly where they say this. Their platforms on which to say things seem to be dropping like flies here. Not saying they didn't claim that, but that's one of the problems with taking away someone's speech entirely - your only "source" for knowing what they have actually said is the claims of the people who just shut them down.

jamespo 9y ago

Maybe you should be the one who chooses what a private company can and can't do? As for the slippery slope arguments, come on.

mbrock 9y ago

I'm curious, if you imagine a possible historical situation, let's say a German business owner in the 1930s that took a stance of not offering services to Nazi organizations, does that appear commendable, or bad in the same "slippery slope" way that you apply in the present situation? It seems to me that such a business owner would seem in hindsight to have been acting virtuously, and it seems that businesses that did in fact offer services to e.g. the Nazi party are now tarnished morally because of that.

meric 9y ago
> It seems to me that such a business owner would seem in hindsight to have been acting virtuously, No it wouldn't - There is a large percentage of population joining Nazi parties for convenience, for their career or even out of fear. Are you going to deny them the food you sell from your shop? If they are Nazi's, are they still not human beings deserving to access food in the market? Does someone being a member of the Nazi party mean we can let them starve to death? Shoot them and push them into a trench even? The moment you dehumanise vast swathes of the population, you've already lost and dropped to the level of "Nazi's". It's not wise to let your enemies turn you into them.
- mbrock 9y ago
  Well, I might ask whether you think there is a difference between selling food to an individual who happens to be a member of the Nazi party, and catering for a Nazi party event?
  - meric 9y ago
    The bottom line is: Am I going to let a man starve himself to death while I have a shop full of food? No.
    - mbrock 9y ago
      What if that man is, for example, threatening your family or friends?

mirimir 9y ago

That is indeed a tough question. And to Cloudflare's credit, they discuss it at some length. I'm quite impressed. But in any case, it's Cloudflare's business, and so it's Cloudflare's decision to make. What concerns me more are censorship mechanisms involving DNS and BGP games. Which the US has been quite fond of using, to take down what it considers to be illegal content. That's a vulnerability of the Internet itself, reflecting continuing US dominance. So hey, we have Tor and other overlay networks. Edit: And just to be clear, I'm a communitarian anarchist. I'm not at all sympathetic to fascists. But I do oppose all censorship.

moomin 9y ago

Congratulations, you've just employed the Sex With Ducks argument. Remember before employing slippery slope arguments to explain why we haven't already fallen down the slope when we banned terrorist websites. And taking down The Daily Stormer was speech. If you want to regulate that kind of speech, it's your right to say so. But don't pretend you're supporting the First Amendment when you do so.

notahacker 9y ago
Don't pretend you're supporting the First Amendment - a restriction on governments making laws against press freedom - when you use it to compel companies to assist in the dissemination of Nazi propaganda against their will. It's not a defence of political freedoms to compel people - rhetorically or otherwise - to disseminate messages that appall them; it's a grotesque imposition upon their political freedom.

intended 9y ago

People sitting on the fences talking about slippery slopes are only ceding space to people pushing the conversation down. I'm sorry but The space to sit idly and think about it is gone. All of society is on the slope because America didn't realize that some points are raised not to discuss, but to tie down discourse and keep logic at bay. Leaving the field open for emotion and lazy logic to defeat whoever remains. There's rules to how this is done, and they have little to do with facts but everything to do with owning the communication channel.

Asdfbla 9y ago

Many European countries (like Germany etc.) have operated with free speech restrictions since the end of WW2 and the slippery slope that is always brought up never materialized. Slippery slope arguments are only valid if you believe that your jurisdiction doesn't have proper rule of law. Otherwise experience, at least in European countries, showed that courts are very well capable of recognizing the importance of free speech even for tasteless and hateful speech.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bloobloobloo 9y ago
> the slippery slope that is always brought up never materialized. Very true. Well, except maybe for that one time when Germany became an open-air rape camp under the noses of police who did nothing for fear of being accused of racism. That kind of sucked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaul... And, oh yeah, there was that time they threw a lawyer in jail for defending a Holocaust denier. http://www.dw.com/en/german-neo-nazi-lawyer-sentenced-for-denying-holocaust/a-3058271 http://www.dw.com/en/german-neo-nazi-lawyer-sentenced-for-de... But otherwise, sure, unqualified success. Great example.
- Asdfbla 9y ago
  I have nothing to say really about your first point where you do nothing but speculate about police motives, but the second one doesn't prove anything either. The second case is not a slippery slope because it does precisely what's codified in German law, nothing more and nothing less. The lawyer herself denied the holocaust and that's punishable in Germany. So the law was correctly applied. That has absolutely nothing to do with the slippery slope discussion.
  - 9y ago

estomagordo 9y ago

Feel free to feel outraged when someone you do have sympathy for gets taken down then. Until that time comes, good riddance to Daily Stormer, you lot of motherfucking nazis.

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

>What else needs to be taken down? It would be interesting to see how much of this applies to sub sects of Islam, namely the sub sects that promote violence or which promote child marriage. My big issue here isn't the logic itself, but the selective application of it. For a similar related topic, whose statues should we have up? What is the objective criteria by which we should decide if a statue is allowed (on public property/at a memorial) and will it be applied to all statues?