I don’t see any compelling reason to alter the constitution’s definition of protected speech, but I’ve at least seen arguments in other threads that such a law, judiciously applied, would focus on prohibiting specific behaviors and types of speech vs. any specific ideological group. While I don’t love the idea, I don’t think a slippery slope into utter tyranny would necessarily be the outcome. The U.S. has very liberal free speech allowances compared to many developed countries who seem to do just fine.
I wonder what the overlap is between constitutional absolutists and paranoid lunatics incapable of coherent thought who reject the regulation of anything because they suffer from a delusional distrust of government.
It’s not “hand waving” to show that in real experience in the real world, appropriately limited and necessary regulation is not a “slippery slope”.
How much do you trust the current US government? 
Obvious troll is obvious:
As I understand it, hate speech has to be directly expressed hatred against one or more groups (subject to interpretation by mods, of course). Endorsing Nazis is hateful, but it is not a directly expressed hatred of one or more groups. It is endorsement of that hatred but only somewhat indirectly.
It’s a fine point and what many might call a distinction without a difference. I don’t personally think it’s a bad thing if “endorsing Nazis” were included under the board rules about hate speech. If that is done, it should be clear (for future reference) that it represents a small but possibly significant extension of the ban against hate speech.
I shoulda been a lawyer.
So, why was handsomeharry banned?
Turns out he was not so handsome.
I think it was the difference between endorsing Nazis and being a Nazi.
Strawman alert!
He was banned for trolling, not for being a Nazi or endorsing them.
How much do you trust neo-Nazis?
If there’s one thing we should understand from history, it’s that there is no substitute for an informed and engaged electorate that demands good government, and no protection against a stupid or apathetic one that elects or allows to be elected a dysfunctional or evil government.
No, it was absolutely on point. No matter how you slice it, dice it, or handwave at it, intransigent absolutism about “rights” instead of a measured assessment of its relationship to the public interest always stems from a basic distrust of whatever institution it is intended to control.
Well , that Danish butter must be pretty expensive these days!
No. “Delusional distrust” of government is not an accurate representation of the facts. Historically, governments have been responsible for the most deaths of people at the hands of other people. I’d think the lessons of fascism and communism would make that obvious.
100s of millions dead at the hands of the state is cause to be rationally fearful of concentration of power.
That’s seems rational at first glance. Sure, large organized bodies of people have been responsible for the greatest numbers of deaths. But of course that’s true - large organized bodies of people have been responsible for all substantial projects in human history, good and bad. That’s how humans have dominated the planet - our evolutionary niche is effective cooperation among large groups of people. We’re good at fighting wars, but also building hospitals and space telescopes.
Citing examples of bad government means nothing. Do you really believe that you are safer from violence in a society without organized government?
Thanks. Wasn’t complaining, merely curious.
I heard someone speaking another language–what was it?
(My “other calling out” this week was for treating abashed for the troll that he is.)
Self promotion much?
I didn’t say no government. I am not an anarchist. I advocate constrained government because I am aware of history. That’s not delusional. Delusional is wanting government to do too much.
Sure–a thread about how people looked like they were fresh out of Africa and were speaking a tribal ritual, and* I’m* the problem.
You weren’t “the problem.” The mod was just offering a gentle reminder – to all of us, in effect – to refrain from jocular responses in GQ until some attempts have been made to answer the question. Not a big deal.