Must be Silenced…


On the website Quartz, writer Alexander Aciman asks why tech companies don’t do more to silence the alt-right and Nazi menace. He brings up the Daily Stormer, Richard Spencer and others, and then jumps to this conclusion, tripping over his own logic in the process.

The glaring loophole in the argument that freedom of speech should allow users such as these to keep posting is a failure to recognize that any public affiliation, however soft, with Nazis or the Klan is a threat on its own. These are not social or cultural clubhouses; they are not political affiliations worthy of respect. The truth remains that supporting these groups is a statement in no uncertain terms that certain people deserve to die. And this message must be silenced.

It is only slightly better that technology companies have the right to shut down speech, as opposed to say, the government. There might not be much difference at all some day. It is true that WordPress could shut down this free web site, if I jump feet first into Nazi propaganda…which is pretty unlikely of course.

Hate those guys. Do I make that clear? I don’t support any white supremacy, racist, Nazi or KKK groups. My God demands that I treat all people the same and my conscience does, too.  I don’t like hate speech from anyone, but I’ll tolerate it within the obvious legal restriction (incitement of violence, libel) because freedom of speech, assembly and religion are important.

When you go about saying that words must be silenced, you’d better have a really good reason. I would hazard that more people have been injured, and more property vandalized in anti-Milo, Black Lives Matters and anti-Trump protests than in any white supremacist or Nazi protests — since those last groups are not actually great in number.

The real violence in the streets has come from leftist protests, and if you swing a lock in a sock or throw rocks at someone, or bring a club to a protest — apparently you’re comfortable causing major injury or death. 

Anti-fascist counter-protesters wait outside Emancipation Park in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Antifa, Charlottesville.

As far as Facebook, Twitter and the lot “policing speech,” it won’t work. It’s like trying to keep dirty pictures away from teenage boys. Where there is a motivated audience, the market will respond. 

Alexander Aciman and his ilk want the technology companies to take on the role of mommies and daddies, keeping bad things from our eyes.  I just shake my head at the misguided arrogance.

 

This entry was posted in Free Speech, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Must be Silenced…

  1. Dianna says:

    Check out Seen. Been Sasse’s response to Richard Spencer.

    The antidote to bad speech is more, and better, speech.

    Phone, train.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Toastrider says:

      Precisely.

      But that takes work, and I think the current crop of ‘activists’ are more than a little lazy.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Rain says:

        They’re too lazy to Think Through The Ill logic of their own positions. They’re too lazy to give any thought to the position of their opposition which they would have to do in order to come up with a rebuttal. But one thing they’re not too lazy to do is get violent toward anyone they disagree with, or has the audacity to disagree with them publicly

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Pablo says:

    The glaring loophole in the argument that freedom of speech should allow users such as these to keep posting is a failure to recognize that any public affiliation, however soft, with Nazis or the Klan is a threat on its own.

    These tools need a dictionary in the worst way. Their “speech is violence, therefore we can be violent too” crap is going to get people hurt. Mostly them.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. They are all evil intentioned idiots. Their cause is that “evil is good and good” is straight from their progenitor Satan.

    Like

  4. onwyrdsdream says:

    Although I wouldn’t humor his argument in the best of times, it is practically hilarious that the people who want to “punch nazis” are flooded to the gills with Communists, Socialists, Marxists, and anarchists (in so much as there is any real differentiation between these groups) who also think, “in no uncertain terms that certain people deserve to die.” If you find your allies are communists in a particular struggle, you’re probably pursuing the wrong goal. Even if you said the counterexample were world war 2, I’d argue.

    Now, I for one, would love nothing more than for both sides of this hateful conversation (in so much as the particular individuals on the so called alt-right are actually racist or nazis, certainly there are some that are) to just shut up, but I would never use the force of the law to do it, because using law for that purpose has no limiting principle. Which is to say, “hate” is vague, and a motivated person can certainly attach the word to anything. It could be used to bar people from calling out things which are provably stupid.

    Honestly, there are several people who’s biggest issue is global warming who think people should be killed for disagreeing with them, or it’s equivalent. (The people who think certain people should be locked away for life and not allowed to speak might as well say they should be killed, as it’s more honest and pretty much the same thing.) My general opinion is no matter who is saying it and what they’re saying, so long as they’re not breaking any law they should be allowed to say it. Rather, if there was any one thing it should be illegal to say, it would be that there is another thing which should be illegal to say. There should be no law which prevents people form the mere communication of ideas in any fashion. Rather, the constitution agrees with me on this point.

    Like

    • onwyrdsdream says:

      Also, shut up is mainly brought out when one can’t think up an arguments that are more compelling than the ones being offered by the opposition. This should usually be counted as evidence that the ones doing the demanding, at the least, don’t have evidence that their opposition’s conclusions are wrong. When the other side in question are called “white supremacist literal NAZIs” yet no strong counter argument can be offered, it is even less compelling. I won’t claim the alt-right or whatever they are are right, I feel it somewhat compelling that much of their opposition are, in fact, wrong.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s