# Linking to hate speech, the Journey Continues

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linking-to-hate-speech-the-journey-continues/1013506>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [January 28, 2025, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linking-to-hate-speech-the-journey-continues/1013506 "2025-01-28T02:17:55Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\
**Post date:** [January 28, 2025, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linking-to-hate-speech-the-journey-continues/1013506/6 "2025-01-28T16:56:28Z")

</div>

> [@ParallelLines](#):
>
> And the last time it came up, it was similarly closed without an actual answer, because again, people defending their right to this practice and hate-speech adjacent topics drove the thread off the road.

Looks like I participated in that discussion and my opinion hasn’t changed.

> [@Aspidistra finds loophole in hate speech rules?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/10):
>
> Linking to hate speech should be actionable. The OP is correct in that it’s an apparent loophole to say, “I didn’t **say** any of that, I just agree with the content.”
> 
> As always, I’m content to avoid bright lines and let the mods make contextual judgement calls on a case by case basis.

I agree that topic bans are a very sensible solution though I do wish the mods were quicker to hand them out (I’m a firm believer in the value of aggressively pruning tolerance paradoxes).

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linking-to-hate-speech-the-journey-continues/1013506)._