We can differentiate between how religions and the groups within behave in practice, which is why we can ban some terrorist groups using religion while not bann

We can differentiate between how religions and the groups within behave in practice, which is why we can ban some terrorist groups using religion while not banning all religious groups How? Can you really define an utterly objective definition of hateful manifesto that captures what you want but does not also capture the Koran, or for that matter, the Old Testament? I would be extremely surprised if so. Those books have a lot of nasty stuff in them. Moreover if you go look at newspaper comments sections reporting on the NZ attacks, a disturbingly high number of people have concluded that Islam is not a religion of peace and that the Koran does in fact radicalise people (helped along by radical preachers). They can point to many terrorist attacks as evidence. There probably isn't any standard of censorship or free speech that isn't twisted in self contradiction of the form "any violent text which leads to terrorism which is sufficiently popular is ok".