NY Times Op-Ed Blasts Cloudflare for Daily Stormer Terror

[Marina Brown]

On 09/14/2017 04:31 PM, jim bell wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thursday, September 14, 2017, 11:34:08 AM PDT, Marina Brown
> <catskillmarina at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09/14/2017 03:44 AM, jim bell wrote:
> 
>>> You say that as if we must all already agree that:   There are
>>> significant numbers of people 'starting planning on murdering whole
>>> groups of people...'    Give us a few actual examples.  
>>  
> 
>>Thankfully it is not significant numbers of people planning genocide. If
> there were we would be in much more trouble than we are.
> 
> 
> You seem to be backing away from your original position.  That's progress. 
> 

Not really. I am alarmed by the increasing number of people who have
gong to the extreme position of advocating wiping people out.

I am just hoping that the majority serves as a break on them.

And the issue is not numbers here.

> 
> 
>>Groups like ironmarch, atomwaffen and many on Daily stormer certainly
> appear to be planning genocide. One does not tag their publication "the
> most genocidal republican website" if one is not interested in promoting
> genocide.
> 
> 
> 
> People could "plan genocide" by email, Twitter, IRC,  Plain Old
> Telephone System, Fax, Telex (?), TWX (?) smoke signals, semaphore,
> tin-cans-and-a-string, message-in-a-bottle, or the U.S. mail if they
> aren't allowed to have websites.
> 

No doubt at all.

If the internet was considered a public utility or something like that
free speech would be better protected, however planning crimes like
genocide would not be.

Probably the most dangerous are not publishing anything at all.

> 
> 
>>...But of course that will be for a judge to decide. Not me.
> 
> 
> 
> But I think you were talking about DNS and website registration.  What
> does prosecuting people for "planning genocide" have to do with
> registering websites?   Remember, if you are trying to justify CURRENT
> censorship of "everybody", you'd better do more than point to a very
> small number of people who, you claim, may eventually carry out what
> would be a tiny number of comparatively minor attacks.  
> 
> 

No - i am speculating about the possible liability of people knowingly
hosting sites planning genocide.

And if the desires of ironmarch were to come to fruition it would not be
minor at all. Thankfully they don't have much resources other than
"mother of satan" and old smoke detectors.

> 
>> And what is your definition of "significant numbers'?   If we are
>> talking murdered bodies, even one might be called a "significant
>> number".  But somehow, to worry most people, you need to show how big
>> the figure is compared with, say, the population of America.  Are the
>> number of people that will be killed greater, or less than, the number
>> of people who die yearly falling down stairs at home, by accident?   For
>> the year 2000, it was 1307.   If it's only 1/10th that number, say 131,
>> it's going to be hard to get people excited.
> 
> 
> 
> I>'m not trying to get people excited. I'm just stating the legal fact
> that conspiracy to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and to deny human
> rights is not free speech. It's a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, then STOP STOP STOP trying to justify censorship in DNS
> registration, or advocating that Cloudflare refuse their services to ONE
> customer,  based on the mere future possibility of a crime occurring.  
>  Especially when it cannot be shown that a specific website, or a
> specific customer, is definitely going to be engaging in a crime.
> 

The reason i mentioned ironmarch and atomwaffen is that their members
have murdered people. Stormfront members have killed about 100 so far.

What i am arguing is that there IS quite possibly a crime occuring when
people use these sites to plan genocide. I'm not talking about idle
talk. I'm talking about stuff that goes towards planning.

I'm quite aware that this argument might lead to the prosecution of
Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and possibly even Alan Dershowitz who have
created legal frameworks that could justify torture. Dersh came up with
the idea of "Torture warrents". In their case there might be a direct
connection with their frameworks and torture.

Though i would say - that maybe i should be pushing for enforcement
directly of the laws about conspiracy to commit genocide. (thinking)


> 
> 
>> And remember all the people murdered in Chicago yearly.  761 in 2016.  
>>  https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016-chicago-murders
> 
> 
> 
>>Nonsequitur. One dead is too many.
> 
> 
> 
> But you can't properly justify an improper action (censorship) without a
> very close arguable connection between the thing you claim to want to
> prevent, and the thing you claim should be done to prevent it.  You
> haven't done that.  Not even close.  Not even a large distance away, in
> fact.  
> Ever heard of this:    "Think of the children!!!"     
> People use various rhetorical tricks to justify things like censorship.
>  You've done that, I think.  Go back and re-think what you think must be
> done, and why.  
> No doubt during eras, and places, where censorship reigns, people
> develop various justifications for it, illogical ones.  
> 

Good discussion and lots for me to think about.

--- Marina


>                        Jim Bell
> 
> 
>