Racism Saves Lives #RacismIsLove #4Racism Racism is Love #RacismIsLove #4Racism
 • Anti-Racism is Anti-Science

#TheTruthIsRacist • #BlackLivesMatter2RacistsDisclaimer4Racism.org


4Racism.org is under construction and very incomplete

Nazis Deserve No Human Rights

1) "Is it OK to punch a Nazi?" asks the New York Times affirmatively. Of course, no one would dare to ask "Is it Okay to Punch a Communist?".  More links at the end.

 

2) Nazis may be blocked from the internet, denied free speech. See below

 

"Nazi" is weaponized, like "Racist".  Even Trump is called "Nazi" in attempts to shut him up.

Nazi assholes" removed from Internet

 

There’s No ‘Nazi’ Exception to the First Amendment

Morgan is echoing an idea that has been advanced repeatedly in the last couple of days: To wit, that there is something particular about Nazism that makes it ineligible for protection under the Bill of Rights. This is flat-out wrong. And, more than that, it’s dangerous. Abhorrent and ugly as they invariably are, there simply is no exception to the First Amendment that exempts Nazis, white supremacists, KKK members, Soviet apologists, or anyone else who harbors disgraceful or illiberal views. As the courts have made abundantly clear, the rules are the same for ghastly little plonkers such as Richard Spencer as they are for William Shakespeare. If that weren’t true, the First Amendment would be pointless. This is not a “controversial” statement. It is not an “interesting view.” It is not a contrarian contribution to an intractable “grey area.” It is a fact. There are a handful of limits to free speech in the United States, and all of them are exceptions of form rather than of viewpoint.

Piers Morgan believes that “If America doesn’t wake up to” the “fact” that “what these Nazis did in Charlottesville is not free speech . . . it is in deep trouble.” It seems obvious to me that the precise opposite is true. “No free speech for fascists” is an incoherent, almost Orwellian, position. Happily – and on a routinely “bipartisan” basis – the Supreme Court concurs.

 

How to Break Silicon Valley’s Anti-Free-Speech Monopoly

In the wake of the outrageous and possibly illegal firing of James Damore for writing a memo that pushed back against Google’s “politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence,” the company has been the focus of an eminently deserved torrent of criticism. A fair bit of this critique has gone beyond the particular situation of Mr. Damore to look at the general hostility of the technology industry to conservatives and conservative thought. Unfortunately, what has been lacking from almost all of these cris de coeur is a strategy regarding what to do about it.

Fortunately, there are some things we can do that could turn the tables on Silicon Valley’s leftist censorship and restore free speech to the Internet. But first, some background.

The evidence of Silicon Valley’s hostility to the Right is everywhere. Prominent conservatives from Michelle Malkin to William Jacobson to Dennis Prager (just to name a few NRO contributors) — and an even greater proportion of those whose politics lean farther to the right, many of whom do not have access to mainstream media and rely on social media to fund their work — have seen themselves banned from major Internet platforms or had their content censored or demonetized. In most cases they are not even given grounds for their punishment or means of appealing it. While some more “mainstream” conservatives may not feel excessively troubled by the banning of more provocative voices farther to the right, in taking this attitude they make a tactical, strategic, and moral mistake. They do not understand how the Left operates. When voices farther to the right are removed, mainstream conservatives become the new “far-right extremists” — and they will be banned with equal alacrity.

 

 

Cloudflare CEO on Terminating Service to Neo-Nazi Site: 'The Daily Stormer Are Assholes'

 

[…] Today, Cloudflare reversed its long-held policy to remain content-neutral and booted The Daily Stormer out from behind its DDoS protection service.

“This was my decision. This is not Cloudflare’s general policy now, going forward,” […] 

But leaving these decisions to CEOs like himself is exactly what Prince doesn’t want—and that’s why Cloudflare isn’t changing its content-neutral policy going forward. Instead, Prince wants to spark a conversation about how tech should respond to abhorrent content, and whether content should be policed by registrars, browsers, or social networks.

“We need to have a discussion around this, with clear rules and clear frameworks. My whims and those of Jeff [Bezos] and Larry [Page] and Satya [Nadella] and Mark [Zuckerberg], that shouldn’t be what determines what should be online,” he said. “I think the people who run The Daily Stormer are abhorrent. But again I don’t think my political decisions should determine who should and shouldn’t be on the internet.”

Here’s the email Prince sent to staffers today explaining his decision:

Team:

Earlier today Cloudflare terminated the account of the Daily Stormer. […] 

This was my decision. Our terms of service reserve the right for us to terminate users of our network at our sole discretion. My rationale for making this decision was simple: the people behind the Daily Stormer are assholes and I’d had enough.

Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision. […]

Having made that decision we now need to talk about why it is so dangerous. I’ll be posting something on our blog later today. Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power.

[Cloudflare employee’s name redacted] asked after I told him what we were going to do: “Is this the day the Internet dies?” He was half joking, but I actually think it’s an important question. It’s important that what we did today not set a precedent. The right answer is for us to be consistently content neutral. […] 

—-

Matthew Prince 

 

Update 8/16 at 6:38 p.m. ET: Prince published a blog post on Cloudflare’s site discussing the reasons behind his decision. […]




 

 

It Was Wrong of the Anti-Trump Protestors to Punch Richard Spencer

 

Aedon Cassiel, "Is it Okay to Punch a Communist?" | Counter ... https://www.counter-currents.com/.../is-it-okay-to-punch-a-communist/

Apr 18, 2017 ... When Richard Spencer was infamously sucker-punched on the ... So what does it mean to ask if it's okay to punch “a Nazi,” when the term has ...

 

Is it OK to punch a Nazi? - The Unz Review

NY Times considers if it is OK to physically attack a "Nazi." If so, is it also OK topunch a Communist? A vid of a mace attack of a girl who the Left deemed to be a .

 

Reason: 'Now It's Okay to Punch Nazis and White Male Libertarians ...

Feb 15, 2017 ... Reason's Robby Soave pointed out how the consensus has gone from it being acceptable to punch Nazis, to now "white male libertarians."

 

Is It Ok to Punch Nazis? | Beyond Highbrow - Robert Lindsay

whether it is ever ok to punch a Nazi. This is a difficult ...