8 ms·

This article has some good points. But I think it's interesting to notice that there are certain kinds of information that even we here in the US, and other li

This article has some good points. But I think it's interesting to notice that there are certain kinds of information that even we here in the US, and other liberal countries, censor (and have more or less always censored) without a moment's consideration. Take child porn, for example. So that blows a hole in the idea that there's no clear line somewhere. I wonder, then, why are ideas like Nazism, with its close historical proximity to genocide and the death of millions (arguably much more repugnant than pictures of naked children), somehow given more consideration than something like child porn?

Ygg2 9y ago
Because people have been labeling each other Nazis for the past decades, that the word lost all meaning. What it kinda boils down to is "a person I disagree with".
- davesque 9y ago
  But isn't it probably true that the Daily Stormer was run by neo-Nazis? Updated to be more accurate in response to a reply. Use of the term "literal Nazis" in my original post was arguably not appropriate.
  - thehardsphere 9y ago
    It was run by literal neo-Nazis, I think. Pretty sure the literal Nazis were either put to death, sent to prison, died of old age, or ended up hiding in Argentina somewhere never to be heard from again.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      This is a distinction without a difference. Neo Nazis are people who are working to revive Nazi ideology. They're Nazis.
      - thehardsphere 9y ago
        Actually, in some cases it is a distinction with a difference. US Immigration law still prohibits members of the actual Nazi party from obtaining permanent residency, and people looking to live here still have to sign statements under penalty of perjury that they are not members of said party. That and the parent said "literal".
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      As soon as those neo-Nazis commit a crime, they should be put away and the figurative "book" should be thrown at them. But the moment our society makes it a practice of punishing people for throughtcrime and for what they might do or have yet to do, then we've become a literal dystopia from Science Fiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minority_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minority_Report
      - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
        You do realize that criminal conspiracy is a thing, right? There's a whole host of laws around "thoughtcrime" (minority report and dystopias like it deal with "precrime" which is distinct). [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)
        Zuider 9y ago
        There is a line to be drawn distinguishing between a toxic ideology, and an active conspiracy to commit a definite crime. They are at least notionally distinct.
        stcredzero 9y ago
        You do realize that criminal conspiracy is a thing, right? So, would Antifa making specific plans to get away with breaking the law apply? Would calling for the overthrow of the US government or the nullification of the US constitution apply? I think yes. I'm all for the prosecution of criminal conspiracy. However, we need to keep a clear distinction between politics and criminality. Flaunting the rule of law is criminality. Making specific plans to break the law is criminality. Operate within the law, and you should be fine. If the extra-legal persecution of Nazis is a good idea because they were such vile people who committed crimes against humanity, then why not the extra-legal persecution of Marxists and Anarchists? Those ideologies have been responsible for the sparking of world wars and the deaths of about 100 million people in the 20th century. People in the Gulag system weren't gassed in mock showers then burned in ovens. However, they were worked to death while freezing to death then blindfolded and bound and loaded on carts while still alive, to be dumped into pits to be buried alive. Not because the masters of the camps were cruel, but rather because it was found to be more efficient to move people around while they were still alive -- and because in the Dialectic Materialist ideology of Marxism, what did a moment of suffocation and horror matter if all flesh is bound to turn back into soil anyhow? Postmodernism is just a cut-and-paste homomorphism to "good old" Marxism. And that stuff isn't about benefiting the people. It's about undoing the current social order and systems of value so you can seize power. Both Nazism and Postmodernist Social Construction explicitly say these things! Just read what the thought leaders say! All attempts to push collectivism to the level of sovereign power have historically resulted in mayhem, millions of deaths, and totalitarianism. (Collectivism on the small scale is fine, when it doesn't try to take over the monopoly on violence, because then it can be held in balance through human relationships. Pure collectivism always fails when there are more than about 350 individuals, though such grouping can be affiliated in a larger bureaucratic framework. But such frameworks can't manage something as large and complex as a national economy. Just look at history. It always fails!)
talmand 9y ago
Maybe because they are two completely separate things? You might as well ask why don't eat oranges like we eat lobster. Not everything needs to be compared with something else to understand how we treat things.
- davesque 9y ago
  Yes, they are literally two separate things. But the point of my comment was that they are similar in some ways and appear to highlight an inconsistency in the way we deal with ideas we don't like. I'm mostly just trying to spur some discussion here. I'm not trying to take a hard stance on anything.
dolson 9y ago
Because child pornography is better defined than Nazism. Sexually explicit images of under age persons is child pornography, full stop. But is "White Nationalism" Nazism? How about Holocaust deniers? KKK? Unless a site explicitly labels itself as pro-Nazi, who's to say it's a Nazi site?
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  The line between Nazis, white supremacists, and KKK members has always been pretty thin. All the Nazis did was apply white supremacist ideas that were in vogue at the time. I still see the occasional person arguing for eugenics, and not all of them are fringe goofballs.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    All you have to do is to take the stance of protecting individual human rights. So much for the Supremacists, KKK members, and Nazis, for all of those ideologies crap on individual human rights. So much for eugenics, which does the same. Make no mistake: The ideological basis of WWII was the protection of individual human rights. In WWII and all through the 20th century forces on the extreme right and the extreme left crapped on individual human rights. Some bad actors acting on behalf of all of the major countries did the same. The cast changes, but the story is the same. Non-violent vs. violent. Good vs. evil. Freedom vs. authoritarianism. Rational intellectualism vs. silencing and baseless accusation. If you would speak truth to power, look at who is exercising power. Look at who resorts to fear and intimidation. Look at who is silencing instead of engaging. Look at who resorts to violence. Look at who revels in the power of the mob. Look at who resorts to appeals to emotion in spite of logic and facts. If you would speak truth to power, speak to those actors.
    - angersock 9y ago
      > Look at who resorts to fear and intimidation. Look at who is silencing instead of engaging. Look at who resorts to violence. Look at who revels in the power of the mob. Not a good look for progressives and antifi, it would seem. (Nor genuine Nazi skinheads, but they're in the minority.)
muppetpastor 9y ago
Easy answer to your question -- do a quick google search for NAMBLA We don't censor the opinion that people should be able to have sex with children. There is a very clear line and it's called the First Amendment. We censor child porn because it is a crime that involves a victim. The Daily Stormer was all talk. Once you start talking about censoring people who might cause people to commit crimes, you've crossed a philosophical boundary into policing thought crimes.
- davesque 9y ago
  Thanks, very good point.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  On the other hand, erotic literature about children (which has no victim) is at best in a legal grey area, and has been successfully prosecuted before. Such a thing is also "all talk".
  - khawkins 9y ago
    Can you give an example?
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-write... There are a few other examples of people getting in varying amounts of trouble, but that one stands out.
    - mcguire 9y ago
      Well, there's Lolita (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita#Publication_and_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita#Publication_and_recepti...).
- imgabe 9y ago
  We censor spam without a second thought and that's only advertisement. Some may be outright illegal scams, but some is surely offering a legitimate service, just in an annoying way. Free speech doesn't grant you a right to use privately owned infrastructure for anything you want.
PeachPlum 9y ago
> ideas like Nazism, with its close historical proximity to genocide and the death of millions cough, communism, cough
- wcarron 9y ago
  This is a thread about Nazism, not Communism. Whataboutisms like that are not constructive.
  - PeachPlum 9y ago
    No it isn't, it's a thread about "The Terrifying Power of Internet Censors"
x220 9y ago
Why not censor communism too, since it is heavily linked to genocide and the deaths of tens of millions of people?
- hypersoar 9y ago
  You can be a communist and be against genocide and mass murder. But ethnic hatred is at the very core of Nazism and white supremacy. You cannot believe in those things without believing in ethnic violence.
knz 9y ago
> So that blows a hole in the idea that there's no clear line somewhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California come to mind. Obviously these involve government censorship but the idea that you "know it when [you] see it" seems to apply for Nazis... From Jacobellis: "Stewart wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material... But I know it when I see it" From Miller: > "However, the Court acknowledged "the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression," and said that "State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited."[12] The Court, in an attempt to set such limits devised a set of three criteria which must be met for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulation: > whether the average person, applying contemporary "community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, > whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, as specifically defined by applicable state law; and > whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[13] This obscenity test overturns the definition of obscenity set out in the Memoirs decision, which held that "all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance . . . have the full protection of the guaranties [of the First Amendment]" and that obscenity was that which was "utterly without redeeming social importance. I don't think many average people are fooled by groups that try and hide behind the principles of free speech when they walk through the streets chanting slogans associated with the ideology of the Holocaust.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  > "...But I know it when I see it" I have tended to think Stewart was being disingenuous with that statement. Simply because he seems to imply that only what he thinks is pr0n is pr0n. He doesn't seem to realize that anything and everything can be and is pr0n. I've often wondered, upon showing him an image or video of woman's foot in a high heel shoe crushing a wine glass, if he would think that was pr0n or not? If he said "No, that is not pr0n" - would he ever realize how wrong he was?
  - knz 9y ago

Ygg2 9y ago

Because people have been labeling each other Nazis for the past decades, that the word lost all meaning. What it kinda boils down to is "a person I disagree with".

davesque 9y ago
But isn't it probably true that the Daily Stormer was run by neo-Nazis? Updated to be more accurate in response to a reply. Use of the term "literal Nazis" in my original post was arguably not appropriate.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  It was run by literal neo-Nazis, I think. Pretty sure the literal Nazis were either put to death, sent to prison, died of old age, or ended up hiding in Argentina somewhere never to be heard from again.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    This is a distinction without a difference. Neo Nazis are people who are working to revive Nazi ideology. They're Nazis.
    - thehardsphere 9y ago
      Actually, in some cases it is a distinction with a difference. US Immigration law still prohibits members of the actual Nazi party from obtaining permanent residency, and people looking to live here still have to sign statements under penalty of perjury that they are not members of said party. That and the parent said "literal".
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    As soon as those neo-Nazis commit a crime, they should be put away and the figurative "book" should be thrown at them. But the moment our society makes it a practice of punishing people for throughtcrime and for what they might do or have yet to do, then we've become a literal dystopia from Science Fiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minority_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minority_Report
    - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
      You do realize that criminal conspiracy is a thing, right? There's a whole host of laws around "thoughtcrime" (minority report and dystopias like it deal with "precrime" which is distinct). [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)
      - Zuider 9y ago
        There is a line to be drawn distinguishing between a toxic ideology, and an active conspiracy to commit a definite crime. They are at least notionally distinct.
      - stcredzero 9y ago
        You do realize that criminal conspiracy is a thing, right? So, would Antifa making specific plans to get away with breaking the law apply? Would calling for the overthrow of the US government or the nullification of the US constitution apply? I think yes. I'm all for the prosecution of criminal conspiracy. However, we need to keep a clear distinction between politics and criminality. Flaunting the rule of law is criminality. Making specific plans to break the law is criminality. Operate within the law, and you should be fine. If the extra-legal persecution of Nazis is a good idea because they were such vile people who committed crimes against humanity, then why not the extra-legal persecution of Marxists and Anarchists? Those ideologies have been responsible for the sparking of world wars and the deaths of about 100 million people in the 20th century. People in the Gulag system weren't gassed in mock showers then burned in ovens. However, they were worked to death while freezing to death then blindfolded and bound and loaded on carts while still alive, to be dumped into pits to be buried alive. Not because the masters of the camps were cruel, but rather because it was found to be more efficient to move people around while they were still alive -- and because in the Dialectic Materialist ideology of Marxism, what did a moment of suffocation and horror matter if all flesh is bound to turn back into soil anyhow? Postmodernism is just a cut-and-paste homomorphism to "good old" Marxism. And that stuff isn't about benefiting the people. It's about undoing the current social order and systems of value so you can seize power. Both Nazism and Postmodernist Social Construction explicitly say these things! Just read what the thought leaders say! All attempts to push collectivism to the level of sovereign power have historically resulted in mayhem, millions of deaths, and totalitarianism. (Collectivism on the small scale is fine, when it doesn't try to take over the monopoly on violence, because then it can be held in balance through human relationships. Pure collectivism always fails when there are more than about 350 individuals, though such grouping can be affiliated in a larger bureaucratic framework. But such frameworks can't manage something as large and complex as a national economy. Just look at history. It always fails!)

talmand 9y ago

Maybe because they are two completely separate things? You might as well ask why don't eat oranges like we eat lobster. Not everything needs to be compared with something else to understand how we treat things.

davesque 9y ago
Yes, they are literally two separate things. But the point of my comment was that they are similar in some ways and appear to highlight an inconsistency in the way we deal with ideas we don't like. I'm mostly just trying to spur some discussion here. I'm not trying to take a hard stance on anything.

dolson 9y ago

Because child pornography is better defined than Nazism. Sexually explicit images of under age persons is child pornography, full stop. But is "White Nationalism" Nazism? How about Holocaust deniers? KKK? Unless a site explicitly labels itself as pro-Nazi, who's to say it's a Nazi site?

rainbowmverse 9y ago
The line between Nazis, white supremacists, and KKK members has always been pretty thin. All the Nazis did was apply white supremacist ideas that were in vogue at the time. I still see the occasional person arguing for eugenics, and not all of them are fringe goofballs.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  All you have to do is to take the stance of protecting individual human rights. So much for the Supremacists, KKK members, and Nazis, for all of those ideologies crap on individual human rights. So much for eugenics, which does the same. Make no mistake: The ideological basis of WWII was the protection of individual human rights. In WWII and all through the 20th century forces on the extreme right and the extreme left crapped on individual human rights. Some bad actors acting on behalf of all of the major countries did the same. The cast changes, but the story is the same. Non-violent vs. violent. Good vs. evil. Freedom vs. authoritarianism. Rational intellectualism vs. silencing and baseless accusation. If you would speak truth to power, look at who is exercising power. Look at who resorts to fear and intimidation. Look at who is silencing instead of engaging. Look at who resorts to violence. Look at who revels in the power of the mob. Look at who resorts to appeals to emotion in spite of logic and facts. If you would speak truth to power, speak to those actors.
  - angersock 9y ago
    > Look at who resorts to fear and intimidation. Look at who is silencing instead of engaging. Look at who resorts to violence. Look at who revels in the power of the mob. Not a good look for progressives and antifi, it would seem. (Nor genuine Nazi skinheads, but they're in the minority.)

muppetpastor 9y ago

Easy answer to your question -- do a quick google search for NAMBLA We don't censor the opinion that people should be able to have sex with children. There is a very clear line and it's called the First Amendment. We censor child porn because it is a crime that involves a victim. The Daily Stormer was all talk. Once you start talking about censoring people who might cause people to commit crimes, you've crossed a philosophical boundary into policing thought crimes.

davesque 9y ago
Thanks, very good point.
joshuamorton 9y ago
On the other hand, erotic literature about children (which has no victim) is at best in a legal grey area, and has been successfully prosecuted before. Such a thing is also "all talk".
- khawkins 9y ago
  Can you give an example?
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-write... There are a few other examples of people getting in varying amounts of trouble, but that one stands out.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    Well, there's Lolita (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita#Publication_and_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita#Publication_and_recepti...).
imgabe 9y ago
We censor spam without a second thought and that's only advertisement. Some may be outright illegal scams, but some is surely offering a legitimate service, just in an annoying way. Free speech doesn't grant you a right to use privately owned infrastructure for anything you want.

PeachPlum 9y ago

> ideas like Nazism, with its close historical proximity to genocide and the death of millions cough, communism, cough

wcarron 9y ago
This is a thread about Nazism, not Communism. Whataboutisms like that are not constructive.
- PeachPlum 9y ago
  No it isn't, it's a thread about "The Terrifying Power of Internet Censors"

x220 9y ago

Why not censor communism too, since it is heavily linked to genocide and the deaths of tens of millions of people?

hypersoar 9y ago
You can be a communist and be against genocide and mass murder. But ethnic hatred is at the very core of Nazism and white supremacy. You cannot believe in those things without believing in ethnic violence.

knz 9y ago

> So that blows a hole in the idea that there's no clear line somewhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California come to mind. Obviously these involve government censorship but the idea that you "know it when [you] see it" seems to apply for Nazis... From Jacobellis: "Stewart wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material... But I know it when I see it" From Miller: > "However, the Court acknowledged "the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression," and said that "State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited."[12] The Court, in an attempt to set such limits devised a set of three criteria which must be met for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulation: > whether the average person, applying contemporary "community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, > whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, as specifically defined by applicable state law; and > whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[13] This obscenity test overturns the definition of obscenity set out in the Memoirs decision, which held that "all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance . . . have the full protection of the guaranties [of the First Amendment]" and that obscenity was that which was "utterly without redeeming social importance. I don't think many average people are fooled by groups that try and hide behind the principles of free speech when they walk through the streets chanting slogans associated with the ideology of the Holocaust.

cr0sh 9y ago
> "...But I know it when I see it" I have tended to think Stewart was being disingenuous with that statement. Simply because he seems to imply that only what he thinks is pr0n is pr0n. He doesn't seem to realize that anything and everything can be and is pr0n. I've often wondered, upon showing him an image or video of woman's foot in a high heel shoe crushing a wine glass, if he would think that was pr0n or not? If he said "No, that is not pr0n" - would he ever realize how wrong he was?
- knz 9y ago