Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 26, 2015
The New York Times has published an op-ed by a sloppy cow named Jessie Daniels calling for the total abolition of free speech in America. Because people are not to be held responsible for their own behavior, and words you read on a screen can force you to murder people.
She writes:
Americans have largely viewed rightwing extremism as a “fringe” problem, small enough to be ignored, dismissed, or at most, warily observed. But while rightwing extremism is not new, online sites that host a panoply of extremist rightwing views are growing in popularity.
One of these sites, Stormfront, has grown from 124,000 registered users in 2008 to over 300,000 today. And, because of the somewhat borderless quality of the Internet, our homegrown white supremacy is now available to a global audience with deadly consequences. The Southern Poverty Law Center has linked that site alone to some 100 hate crime murders.
As we all know, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a very reliable source of information.
We also know that a website with tens of thousands of regular readers must be held responsible for the actions of anyone who looks at it.
The Department of Homeland Security should treat white supremacy as a terrorist threat to the government, and monitor online hubs and websites that promote racial violence and hate.
You see what she did there? “Violence and hate.” Because they are the same thing and need to be dealt with in the same way.
She goes on to further confuse the issue.
Unfortunately, Homeland Security gutted their program for monitoring domestic terrorism in 2010, after conservatives objected to a “politically charged” leaked report. It is time to rebuild that program, and identify and outlaw the kind of online speech that can incite violence and cause real harm. This will take legislative action on Congress’s part, as white supremacist rhetoric online does not forfeit its First Amendment protections in America unless it is joined with targeted threats or harassment, or incitement to illegality.
But there is a legal precedent: In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that a burning cross is not protected speech, because it is meant to racially terrorize a group of people, and never as a democratic discussion.
In the same way, online speech that advocates for killing people because of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation should not be protected. In evaluating online speech in Google searches, and on websites and social media, the question becomes: What constitutes a burning cross in the digital era?
No one is advocating for killing people because of their race. At least I’m not, and neither is Stormfront. But even if I were to be like “we gotta gas these kikes to deal with the lampshade shortage,” that would currently be within my legal rights. Malik Shabazz just called for killing White people and their families, and was technically within his rights. Because the threat is not specific, and thus not immediate. But, as that particular type of speech is very rare, it is clear this is not her main concern. Her main concern is the “hate” part of the “violence and hate” – she wants us to be forced into full-Europe style speech laws, where even questioning the collective behavior of a race is against the law.
We are going to hear more and more of this talk until we get to the point where Hillary actually makes a move.
Methinks Madam Daniels should get charged for this article, wherein she makes an immediate threat of severe violence against the internet.
