Twitter mobs, actions of niche publishers are all part of the marauding left eating itself. Bad actors behind these actions are still agitating for naked censorship of ideas they find offensive or unacceptable. You haven't convinced me this isn't the case, however, you did manage to Godwin that discussion more than a few times. We did move on from that low point, but it was abandoned only insofar as I gave up on you being capable of moving past emotional arguments and rediscovering rationality.

Quote
In your previous examples, the people who have been "censored" have been removed by payment providers and domain registrars. ... They cited terms of service violations around hate speech ... do you think these companies should not have the right to refuse service?


These companies should not have the right to refuse service. If we agree that such right ought to exist, then it should also apply to Cake Shops, Catholic Hospitals and so on. You can't argue that refusing baking a cake for a gay wedding in any way different from refusing DNS registration for a supremacists site. What about Cake Shop implementing ToS with "You will not endorse or practice acts in contravention of Leviticus 18:22"? Would that in your eyes make refused service reasonable? There are too many ways to define hate speech for free speech to survive it. Plus, using "hate speech is against ToS" as justification in such cases is a clear case of parallel construction - you decide whom you want to exclude and then craft ToS to enable you to do so.

Quote
As a head start on your main argument, and before you answer the above, the essential reason the cake shop was violating the Civil Rights Act is that refusing service was not on grounds of behavior disruptive to their legitimate business interests, and was not equivalent to compelling speech - e.g. the cake shop was not forced to promote the cake for the same-sex wedding, only to make it, and this had no impact on their business otherwise. The payment providers and domain registars (and social media) are all arguing that these customers DO represent a disruption to their legitimate business interests. (Social media, I would argue, is additionally compelled to promote speech in a limited way).


This is a bunch of bullshit. If you argue "only to make it", then you can also argue "only to register" and "only to process". Nobody reasonable would confuse DNS registration with endorsing hate speech and nobody reasonable would consider registering stormfront website to be disruptive to other DNS registration. However, the whole point is that you don't want to be reasonable, you want to censor Nazis without owning up to your actions. Try being honest for a change, say it with me "I just want to censor Nazis". You will feel better afterwards.


[Linked Image]