Even further, the folks who are the loudest about having a "right" to post threats on a private business's wall ("online platform") are almost always the ones trying to bully any opposing views into silence. Don't get me wrong- everyone does this from time to time, but the dripping hypocrisy is a bit much for me.
It makes me laugh to think about indicting a business owner for saying what can and can't go on their wall, too. I'm like, "If I put a whiteboard outside of my home, and someone comes over and draws a swastika made of dicks on it, I have every right to wipe that clean (or not)."
Side note: all swastikas should be drawn with penises.
Also, if anyone happens to read this who made a horrible mistake earlier in life and there's like a swastika trampstamp, I know how to fix it! Follow me for more life tips.
This is a clarifying question about something you wrote that I have not seen expressed before. You wrote that the First Amendment is being "misread."
In what way?
Hate speech is dangerous, but it seems to be protected currently by the First Amendment. And of course it applies only to government and its affiliates.
You have made me think more deeply about this important issue, so your posts and words are not just "preaching to the choir."
The First Amendment only protects against government interference of free speech. But it also protects private companies when they decide for themselves what constitutes 'free speech' and how it affects their own moral judgements. It gives them the right to censor.
So when anti-censor absolutists use the First Amendment to cement their arguments, they're flat-out wrong.
I hope i've been clear that I think the First Amendment *standard* is a good starting place for certain institutions to think about what they will choose to allow and is not a legal requirement.
You could only make the argument you rightfully dismiss if you never read the Amendment itself!
I personally think it's rather meaningless in this particular argument. As meaningless as the Second Amendment when we're talking about the proliferation of assault weapons. They're easy distractions when what we really need to do is cut to the heart of the matter: What kind of real damage has the acceptance/approval of open hatred done to real people? If we can answer that without using props or hyperbole we might actually get somewhere.
Ramona, I'm glad you brought up the First Amendment, and David, that you asked for clarification about what Ramona meant. That was the very point I was heading to the comments to cheer - that the First Amendment is so often alluded to and never read. Ramona, You make a good point that even though the First and Second Amendment both have specific language (Congress may not infringe...), that language is not driving the conversation. This U.S. Courts page provides a quick glimpse at how courts have interpreted the free speech provision: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does . Universities have a role here, too. When we sling "free speech" around to mean anyone can say anything, it's terrible intellectual and civic leadership. That's not what Franklin, a signer of the Constitution, meant at all.
Censorship exists and always will. You wouldn’t want to live in a world where nothing was censored. In Substack’s case, they’re going to have to make a choice--give Nazis and haters a platform where they can thrive and grow or tell them to get lost. The decision shouldn’t be that hard.
Thank you for this. All of it is clarifying, reasoned, reasonable. It is a call for action from all of us who see the difference between hateful speech and hate speech.
I've been following the rise of open Jew-hatred on college campuses and it's very scary, totally reminiscent of Nazi Germany at the beginning of Hitler's reign. And that's not hyperbole. I've read dozens of books about that period, some by witnesses.
Yeah. Same here. I am not feeling very good about the future and the thing is? There really isn’t a good place to hide. It’s creeping up everywhere, turning into a flood….
I come from Europe, have been living here for over 25 years now, and the free speech debate still baffles me. And I don't know the answer. In my native country Nazi symbols and speech are illegal. People have been tried (and found guilty - penalty is mostly a fine, but OK) for claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen. So, does that mean free speech is curtailed? Does it mean that "here in America" people are more free? Maybe... but what about the right of society to defend itself against toxic behavior? Where do we draw the line between hate speech and calls for violence? And even trickier, is making some forms of speech illegal threaten other forms of speech ... who decides? And just to add a scoop of complexity, take a look at recent election results in Europe. Hate speech is illegal and yet the extreme right is on the rise. The belief in the strength of the democratic system is eroding and that is much worse than morons in jackboots yelling slogans.
Martine, you've asked some of the same questions I find myself asking. I am more of a pacifist than not; calls for violence go against everything in my nature, so naturally (ahem) I am inclined to want to shut them down. But running along side that ideal is another one I'll refer to as "And justice for all." All isn't just the ideas I prefer, but...all. What happens when the tactics are flipped around to justify the very thing I'm trying to curtail? Ramona, Tara, I'm open to comment from the two of you as well. Please.
I guess I would ask where's the justice in giving violent bullies permission to threaten and endanger in the name of something as amorphous as 'free speech'? It's utter insanity to claim that if we shut them down, even justifiably, somehow we're opening the floodgates to shut down any subversive or questionable voices, even those working for good.
It does no such thing. They could be shut down, with or without the efforts to censor hate speech.
There is no law against censoring. There are no solid laws against hate speech.
There is no justification for allowing the proliferation of vile, dangerous propaganda, but we're obviously on our own when it comes to enforcement. And as hard as that may be, it's made even harder by the insistence from the other side that, because we're supposed to believe in 'free speech, no matter what", we'll just have to live with it.
Look what that kind of 'freedom' has done already. It has told the world--and the haters--it's okay.
I see your point, Mona, and want to believe in a society that works in the ways we all want it to, where bad people are called out for violent, bullying behaviors, and innocent, good people are protected. But as you note in your last sentence, the world is not necessarily sane.
I consider all the voices that have been silenced across the years in the absence of clear guidance on this topic. Essentially, decisions always fell for the ruling majority. So I get the urgency around protections and in safeguarding those who may be vulnerable to repression or violence. But I can't get beyond the fact that any guidance we choose to uphold could be turned against us in the wrong hands. Nor can I ignore that, no matter how distasteful I may find some points of view, freedom of expression is just that.
The question I can't answer successfully is "Who gets to decide?" It is complicated and unsettling, to say the least. I don't like the thought that my uncertainties, or attempts to avoid hypocrisy, could be misconstrued as condoning the abhorrent.
I know the ACLU is controversial and, ironically, potentially hypocritical. But, this philosophy from that group best captures what I think I'm trying to convey: "Defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they're going to be preserved for everyone."
Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you on this, Elizabeth. I'm most often in support of the ACLU but I can't any longer agree with their broad reading of 'free speech'.
I've watched hate groups and their hate rhetoric grow to frightening, enormous proportions and the one thing they always have going for them is what I consider the specious, lazy use of free speech rights to dismiss or evade any suggestion that their calls for violence must be stopped.
Our own free speech rights are in no danger by curtailing theirs. There is an obvious line we can draw between ugly, odious speech and the damaging, threatening speech coming from them.
It's been coming for a long time, and those of us who have been watching and reporting on the rise of hate groups have long been concerned with the cavalier approach to their calls for actual damage to citizens who don't fall into line.
In the letter to Substack, the use of the word 'Nazi' was deliberate, as there are actual Nazis using Substack as a means to get their message out, bit it also includes fascists and white supremacists--any one or any group advocating for outright violence, which is where most of us draw the line.
We have a growing problem with hate in this country and we'll never solve it by normalizing it.
So the question is: how do we solve it? How do we keep it from growing? How do we convince our citizens that we can't tolerate that kind of damaging hate when we give them free reign over the airwaves and on the internet? Do we just accept it? What are we really afraid of?
I honestly don't see how my free speech rights would be in jeopardy by cutting off the rights of people who use it to destroy. We put people in jail for any number of things, but that doesn't mean we'll all go to jail someday unless we release them all.
Reading what others have written, and putting my own thoughts into writing, is starting to bring more clarity. As I think I wrote elsewhere, I'm realizing that my much of my uncertainty is rooted less in the whether, or the why, and more, as you note here, in the *how.* I haven't yet come across a model that feels balanced or effective, but I've got my eyes and ears open. Thanks for working through some of this "aloud" with me, Mona. Truly grateful.
Yes my biggest hurdle is “how”. Until a clear replacement for the broad “threat of physical harm” in the TOS and a moderation system is described, I’m hesitant to join the ask for tighter guidelines.
There must be found a return to using only true facts when describing events. This “alternate facts” gimmick is just plain lying. Why is it allowed on media?
Yeah, I'd argue that censorship does lead to extreme right rising, so I'm not surprised by that. We'll have to see if I'm correct in the 2024 US elections (Imma be honest: I'm terrified I'm wrong, don't want to imagine the consequences).
I would click two hearts for your comment, but that one would cancel out the other. One it will have to be. I didn't follow whether the quotation was from Jason McBride or from you. If it's from Jason, do you have a link to the post where he says it? If it's from you: Spot on! :-)
I don't think we can save or archive Notes like we can posts. Not that I have found, at least. Yes, the rotating circle means restack. I suppose if I restacked someone's Note, that would save it as one of my Notes, and I could find it that way. Thank you for the idea. :-)
Thank you, Ramona, for connecting our essays. (I will do the same.) I'm glad we're taking time to add some post scripts. Your distinction between different kinds of speech is important.
I remember when people were laughing at the Tea Party in the early 2000s and they grew to become the Republican Party we see today. We want to call things fringe and wave their comments away when we should be monitoring it. They were “crazy” back then but Roe was overturned and people seriously think trans women are men in dresses, a ridiculous idea that now has very real legislation behind it.
Recognizing the presence and even marginal proliferation of hate groups or hateful individuals is part of remaining vigilant and responding to embers before fire spreads.
I just do not see it. You would think there are Nazis around every corner. I have not encountered them on this platform probably because I am not looking for them or do not have common interests. I am not saying they do not exist in the world but I think their presence is minimal.
My growing up years were in Detroit and Highland Park, then we moved to Southfield
, where I graduated HS. My husband and I raised our family in Westland before we retired and became Yoopers. Right now I’m at my daughter’s house in Southgate. My other daughter lies in Garden City. Do you ever get back there?
I’m actually writing about being the steamboat pilot at Greenfield Village in Part 3 of the story you inspired me to write... if I can just get it finished.
I’m struggling with transitions and putting the three parts in the right order. But I really hope to post it tomorrow. (Also said by me for the last week-and-a-half 😆) I’d like to done with the whole thing on Christmas Eve.
You’re right. You were also absolutely right when you told me that it needs to be cathartic and not punishment. That’s made such a difference. Actually it’s made all the difference. I’m so grateful for your compassion and wisdom.
I am not denying they may be represented on this and other platforms. However be careful who you call a fundamentalist of any stripe. We are all looking for the bogeyman rather than the light.
They are human. And denying that doesn't gain us support, it gives them leverage. It is precisely because I so hate Nazis that I'm calling for their opinions to be allowed here.
We are not stooping to their level by taking away their platform. And they are as inhuman as it gets. There has to be consequences for haters and their violent rhetoric. If there never is, they'll gain the upper hand.
We're getting close to that now, so I vehemently disagree. There are many times when censorship IS the answer. Nobody is suggesting that censoring one group of people opens up censorship to other groups. We all know where the lines are drawn. Inciting violence is worse than yelling fire in a crowded theater. It can cause great harm and we have to stop pretending otherwise. We have to stop hiding behind an amendment that has nothing to do with private companies and everything to do with government censorship.
Removing those who espouse violence from a single platform isn't taking away their right to speak. They can go elsewhere.
Even further, the folks who are the loudest about having a "right" to post threats on a private business's wall ("online platform") are almost always the ones trying to bully any opposing views into silence. Don't get me wrong- everyone does this from time to time, but the dripping hypocrisy is a bit much for me.
You're exactly right. Hypocrisy of the worst kind.
It makes me laugh to think about indicting a business owner for saying what can and can't go on their wall, too. I'm like, "If I put a whiteboard outside of my home, and someone comes over and draws a swastika made of dicks on it, I have every right to wipe that clean (or not)."
Side note: all swastikas should be drawn with penises.
Your comment made me laugh! Thank you!
Also, if anyone happens to read this who made a horrible mistake earlier in life and there's like a swastika trampstamp, I know how to fix it! Follow me for more life tips.
I'll follow you anywhere! 💕
Hi Ramona,
This is a clarifying question about something you wrote that I have not seen expressed before. You wrote that the First Amendment is being "misread."
In what way?
Hate speech is dangerous, but it seems to be protected currently by the First Amendment. And of course it applies only to government and its affiliates.
You have made me think more deeply about this important issue, so your posts and words are not just "preaching to the choir."
Best,
David
The First Amendment only protects against government interference of free speech. But it also protects private companies when they decide for themselves what constitutes 'free speech' and how it affects their own moral judgements. It gives them the right to censor.
So when anti-censor absolutists use the First Amendment to cement their arguments, they're flat-out wrong.
Agreed.
I hope i've been clear that I think the First Amendment *standard* is a good starting place for certain institutions to think about what they will choose to allow and is not a legal requirement.
You could only make the argument you rightfully dismiss if you never read the Amendment itself!
I personally think it's rather meaningless in this particular argument. As meaningless as the Second Amendment when we're talking about the proliferation of assault weapons. They're easy distractions when what we really need to do is cut to the heart of the matter: What kind of real damage has the acceptance/approval of open hatred done to real people? If we can answer that without using props or hyperbole we might actually get somewhere.
Ramona, I'm glad you brought up the First Amendment, and David, that you asked for clarification about what Ramona meant. That was the very point I was heading to the comments to cheer - that the First Amendment is so often alluded to and never read. Ramona, You make a good point that even though the First and Second Amendment both have specific language (Congress may not infringe...), that language is not driving the conversation. This U.S. Courts page provides a quick glimpse at how courts have interpreted the free speech provision: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does . Universities have a role here, too. When we sling "free speech" around to mean anyone can say anything, it's terrible intellectual and civic leadership. That's not what Franklin, a signer of the Constitution, meant at all.
Hey, great point. But as such, even if it's not required by the First Amendment, I don't think Substack should censor here.
Censorship exists and always will. You wouldn’t want to live in a world where nothing was censored. In Substack’s case, they’re going to have to make a choice--give Nazis and haters a platform where they can thrive and grow or tell them to get lost. The decision shouldn’t be that hard.
> You wouldn’t want to live in a world where nothing was censored
I do, as I argued in my post.
We don't tell anyone to get lost - because they won't. The best way to defeat them is to allow them to stay.
Thank you for this. All of it is clarifying, reasoned, reasonable. It is a call for action from all of us who see the difference between hateful speech and hate speech.
Thank you. I hope I won't be the only one to see the difference and shout it out.
I hope so too!
I've been following the rise of open Jew-hatred on college campuses and it's very scary, totally reminiscent of Nazi Germany at the beginning of Hitler's reign. And that's not hyperbole. I've read dozens of books about that period, some by witnesses.
Here's an example of serious antisemitism at Houston's Rice University: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/antisemitism-is-prevalent-on-my-us-campus/
It's not isolated--reports like this are coming in from across the country.
Yeah. Same here. I am not feeling very good about the future and the thing is? There really isn’t a good place to hide. It’s creeping up everywhere, turning into a flood….
A friend is trying to get German citizenship but things are grim there with the AFD rising in popularity.
We all need the courage of Ruby Freeman and Shae Moss!
Oh, yes! We do!
I come from Europe, have been living here for over 25 years now, and the free speech debate still baffles me. And I don't know the answer. In my native country Nazi symbols and speech are illegal. People have been tried (and found guilty - penalty is mostly a fine, but OK) for claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen. So, does that mean free speech is curtailed? Does it mean that "here in America" people are more free? Maybe... but what about the right of society to defend itself against toxic behavior? Where do we draw the line between hate speech and calls for violence? And even trickier, is making some forms of speech illegal threaten other forms of speech ... who decides? And just to add a scoop of complexity, take a look at recent election results in Europe. Hate speech is illegal and yet the extreme right is on the rise. The belief in the strength of the democratic system is eroding and that is much worse than morons in jackboots yelling slogans.
Martine, you've asked some of the same questions I find myself asking. I am more of a pacifist than not; calls for violence go against everything in my nature, so naturally (ahem) I am inclined to want to shut them down. But running along side that ideal is another one I'll refer to as "And justice for all." All isn't just the ideas I prefer, but...all. What happens when the tactics are flipped around to justify the very thing I'm trying to curtail? Ramona, Tara, I'm open to comment from the two of you as well. Please.
I guess I would ask where's the justice in giving violent bullies permission to threaten and endanger in the name of something as amorphous as 'free speech'? It's utter insanity to claim that if we shut them down, even justifiably, somehow we're opening the floodgates to shut down any subversive or questionable voices, even those working for good.
It does no such thing. They could be shut down, with or without the efforts to censor hate speech.
There is no law against censoring. There are no solid laws against hate speech.
There is no justification for allowing the proliferation of vile, dangerous propaganda, but we're obviously on our own when it comes to enforcement. And as hard as that may be, it's made even harder by the insistence from the other side that, because we're supposed to believe in 'free speech, no matter what", we'll just have to live with it.
Look what that kind of 'freedom' has done already. It has told the world--and the haters--it's okay.
In a sane world it would never be okay.
I see your point, Mona, and want to believe in a society that works in the ways we all want it to, where bad people are called out for violent, bullying behaviors, and innocent, good people are protected. But as you note in your last sentence, the world is not necessarily sane.
I consider all the voices that have been silenced across the years in the absence of clear guidance on this topic. Essentially, decisions always fell for the ruling majority. So I get the urgency around protections and in safeguarding those who may be vulnerable to repression or violence. But I can't get beyond the fact that any guidance we choose to uphold could be turned against us in the wrong hands. Nor can I ignore that, no matter how distasteful I may find some points of view, freedom of expression is just that.
The question I can't answer successfully is "Who gets to decide?" It is complicated and unsettling, to say the least. I don't like the thought that my uncertainties, or attempts to avoid hypocrisy, could be misconstrued as condoning the abhorrent.
I know the ACLU is controversial and, ironically, potentially hypocritical. But, this philosophy from that group best captures what I think I'm trying to convey: "Defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they're going to be preserved for everyone."
Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you on this, Elizabeth. I'm most often in support of the ACLU but I can't any longer agree with their broad reading of 'free speech'.
I've watched hate groups and their hate rhetoric grow to frightening, enormous proportions and the one thing they always have going for them is what I consider the specious, lazy use of free speech rights to dismiss or evade any suggestion that their calls for violence must be stopped.
Our own free speech rights are in no danger by curtailing theirs. There is an obvious line we can draw between ugly, odious speech and the damaging, threatening speech coming from them.
It's been coming for a long time, and those of us who have been watching and reporting on the rise of hate groups have long been concerned with the cavalier approach to their calls for actual damage to citizens who don't fall into line.
In the letter to Substack, the use of the word 'Nazi' was deliberate, as there are actual Nazis using Substack as a means to get their message out, bit it also includes fascists and white supremacists--any one or any group advocating for outright violence, which is where most of us draw the line.
We have a growing problem with hate in this country and we'll never solve it by normalizing it.
So the question is: how do we solve it? How do we keep it from growing? How do we convince our citizens that we can't tolerate that kind of damaging hate when we give them free reign over the airwaves and on the internet? Do we just accept it? What are we really afraid of?
I honestly don't see how my free speech rights would be in jeopardy by cutting off the rights of people who use it to destroy. We put people in jail for any number of things, but that doesn't mean we'll all go to jail someday unless we release them all.
We know where the lines are drawn.
Reading what others have written, and putting my own thoughts into writing, is starting to bring more clarity. As I think I wrote elsewhere, I'm realizing that my much of my uncertainty is rooted less in the whether, or the why, and more, as you note here, in the *how.* I haven't yet come across a model that feels balanced or effective, but I've got my eyes and ears open. Thanks for working through some of this "aloud" with me, Mona. Truly grateful.
I get it. It. Gets more and more confounding.
Yes my biggest hurdle is “how”. Until a clear replacement for the broad “threat of physical harm” in the TOS and a moderation system is described, I’m hesitant to join the ask for tighter guidelines.
There must be found a return to using only true facts when describing events. This “alternate facts” gimmick is just plain lying. Why is it allowed on media?
Great questions. I admit I'm not too sure on anything, but here are some of my opinions: https://open.substack.com/pub/humanpolitics/p/censorship-is-never-the-answer
Yeah, I'd argue that censorship does lead to extreme right rising, so I'm not surprised by that. We'll have to see if I'm correct in the 2024 US elections (Imma be honest: I'm terrified I'm wrong, don't want to imagine the consequences).
Jason McBride
Weird Poetry
"The right to free speech isn’t the right to be heard.
It’s the right not to be arrested or fined for your speech, that’s it."
Me.
Responding verbally to poisonous diatribes is like on a Halloween porch, kicking the flaming sack.
When I was protesting US foreign policy in the 80s with a small group on street corners I insisted we wave the Stars and Stripes.
You are one rightious Detroiter!
I would click two hearts for your comment, but that one would cancel out the other. One it will have to be. I didn't follow whether the quotation was from Jason McBride or from you. If it's from Jason, do you have a link to the post where he says it? If it's from you: Spot on! :-)
It was in Jason McBride's
Weird Poetry post on banning racist speech in a note posted by
Cabot O'Callaghan
The Late Magician
12/16/23
"The right to free speech isn’t the right to be heard.
It’s the right not to be arrested or fined for your speech, that’s it."
I had commented on another post that responding verbally to poisonous diatribes was like, on a Halloween porch, kicking the flaming sack.
I left Cabot's note to compose my response on my phone's note app and when finished, the note had disappeared.
Both Jason and Cabot have paywalls so I was not able to contact them directly fo my comment.
I have recently seen that Jason's statement may not be quite all comprehensive though.
Thank you for that clarification, Malcolm. I lose Notes, too. Searchable and savable Notes will be a big help, if we get that function eventually.
What about archive?
Also is the rotating circle the restack button?
I don't think we can save or archive Notes like we can posts. Not that I have found, at least. Yes, the rotating circle means restack. I suppose if I restacked someone's Note, that would save it as one of my Notes, and I could find it that way. Thank you for the idea. :-)
Thank you for the info.
Thank you, Ramona, for connecting our essays. (I will do the same.) I'm glad we're taking time to add some post scripts. Your distinction between different kinds of speech is important.
I remember when people were laughing at the Tea Party in the early 2000s and they grew to become the Republican Party we see today. We want to call things fringe and wave their comments away when we should be monitoring it. They were “crazy” back then but Roe was overturned and people seriously think trans women are men in dresses, a ridiculous idea that now has very real legislation behind it.
Recognizing the presence and even marginal proliferation of hate groups or hateful individuals is part of remaining vigilant and responding to embers before fire spreads.
Absolutely. I remember those days well. The bullies have grown more and more vicious--because they can.
Yes. And I remember how Reagan went from “nah, he’ll never win” to “HOLY SHIT HE WON OH CRUD.”
1980 and 2016. The two worst elections of my life.
Two unqualified actors...
Yes, mine, too. Except I would have to add GWB in 2000 Those three... The worst ever.
You are so spot on. I agree with every single word. Bravo.
Thank you so much. I appreciate it. 💕
I just do not see it. You would think there are Nazis around every corner. I have not encountered them on this platform probably because I am not looking for them or do not have common interests. I am not saying they do not exist in the world but I think their presence is minimal.
I think you’ve missed the point. They’re here and they’re being encouraged be the head office. We’re not making this up.
Well written 🙂
Ramona, you’re from Detroit? 😃
Yep.
I grew up in Dearborn
My growing up years were in Detroit and Highland Park, then we moved to Southfield
, where I graduated HS. My husband and I raised our family in Westland before we retired and became Yoopers. Right now I’m at my daughter’s house in Southgate. My other daughter lies in Garden City. Do you ever get back there?
Wait, do you have a son named Rick?
No. But I think my husband might have coached him in Little League. Thee was another family named Grigg in Westland. No relation.
That’s wild. Talk about small world!
I haven’t been able to go home in a long while. I miss it. My wife and sons went back home in 2020 just before her Mum passed.
I miss the snow a lot. It’s been oddly cold here but as soon as the clouds roll in, it warms up just enough to rain instead of snow 🤬
I’m actually writing about being the steamboat pilot at Greenfield Village in Part 3 of the story you inspired me to write... if I can just get it finished.
I would love to read that! Lots of great Greenfield Village memories.
I’m struggling with transitions and putting the three parts in the right order. But I really hope to post it tomorrow. (Also said by me for the last week-and-a-half 😆) I’d like to done with the whole thing on Christmas Eve.
Nice. But don’t stress about it. Nothing bad will happen if it has to sit awhile!
You’re right. You were also absolutely right when you told me that it needs to be cathartic and not punishment. That’s made such a difference. Actually it’s made all the difference. I’m so grateful for your compassion and wisdom.
I’m glad I could help, if even a little. You need to be kinder to yourself. 🙂
I am not denying they may be represented on this and other platforms. However be careful who you call a fundamentalist of any stripe. We are all looking for the bogeyman rather than the light.
If they fit the definition of haters whose mission it is to do harm, I don't care what they're called.
We're not going to give it to them at all - but we aren't going to stoop to their levels either. Anyway, IMO censorship is a bad idea on every count - (short article) https://open.substack.com/pub/humanpolitics/p/censorship-is-never-the-answer
They are human. And denying that doesn't gain us support, it gives them leverage. It is precisely because I so hate Nazis that I'm calling for their opinions to be allowed here.
We are not stooping to their level by taking away their platform. And they are as inhuman as it gets. There has to be consequences for haters and their violent rhetoric. If there never is, they'll gain the upper hand.
We're getting close to that now, so I vehemently disagree. There are many times when censorship IS the answer. Nobody is suggesting that censoring one group of people opens up censorship to other groups. We all know where the lines are drawn. Inciting violence is worse than yelling fire in a crowded theater. It can cause great harm and we have to stop pretending otherwise. We have to stop hiding behind an amendment that has nothing to do with private companies and everything to do with government censorship.
Removing those who espouse violence from a single platform isn't taking away their right to speak. They can go elsewhere.