Re: Multiple abuses from i2pn2.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

. . .

 "insults" - i.e. like *your* "NAZI", repeated umpteen times - are
speech, which may or may not have consequences. I don't consider "NAZI"
to be free speech, but won't get a fit about something like "moron". It
all depends.

Congratulations. I finally got trolled into posting a followup into this
thread that just won't die. This is reminiscent of the pondscum and
socmen herding attempts that exposed the Big 8 administrators as
complete and utter fools years ago.

I'm a Jew. I know full well that the Holocaust didn't occur because
people during the 1930s made lame insults in writing. It's laughable
that in post-WWII de-Nazification that certain countries passed laws
banning the Nazi party and even use of the word "Nazi" entirely. It's a
complete and utter willful misunderstanding of recent history and
insulting to the memory of those who were murdered.

It's speech. If you want the government to oppress an idea, then you
oppose free speech. But you don't get to tell people that you don't
consider use of a word that stands for an idea you oppose "free speech".

You're wrong, and you truly need to rethink your position. Censorship is
black and white. Either speech is repressed, or it's not. There is no
middle ground.

 Most "threats" are probably not free speech, but most of them are
probably not actionable (by law enforcement).

A threat has an underlying criminal act, speech used in the crime of
intimidation or coersion. It's not just words like a lame insult of
calling someone a Nazi.

. . .