Being a Nazi is allowed under free speech though. Suppressing Nazi speech is the same as suppressing a social justice warrior right? You can't pick and choose your free speech.
>Suppressing Nazi speech is the same as suppressing a social justice warrior right?
No, but only because "social justice warrior" is a blanket perjorative for leftists, feminists, liberals, and anyone else right-wing antisocial types find annoying, not an actual ideology that people identify with, like nazism or white supremacy.
You can't suppress "social justice warriors" any more than you can suppress "cucks" or "landwhales."
Are you implying that the terms 'Nazi' and 'White Supremacist' isn't throw around by left-wing more sensitive idealists as a pejorative for people that hold conservative values? 'SJW' is a synonym for far-left ideologues, just as 'Nazi' has been used to describe the opposite end of the spectrum.
>Are you implying that the terms 'Nazi' and 'White Supremacist' isn't throw around by left-wing more sensitive idealists as a pejorative for people that hold conservative values?
No. While those terms are sometimes used by the left as general insults, they also describe actual movements, political ideologies and identifiable ideas.
However, "social justice warriors" don't actually exist, and the only equivalency that can be drawn between the views of one and the other, in the relevant context of free speech and censorship, is a false one.
In the past some minority rights activists described themselves as "social justice warriors"; it's a genuine subculture. There are a handful of people who still identify themselves that way.
"SJW" is about as well-defined as "alt-right" is. I also see the term SJW used by people on the left to criticise what they see as an over-emphasis on identity politics.
But one term is to you, a blanket pejorative used by anti-social types, and the other is not?
I think you're running up against the ambiguity of language in the definition of "speech." Is verbally ordering a hit on somebody speech? Obviously. Is it the same thing that the ideal of "free speech" seeks to protect? Obviously not.
So you can't just say "This is speech, therefore it must be free speech." Advocating genocide and harassing people in minority groups are different in a very salient way from saying mean things about a politician.
If you run a bar or cafe and someone is spouting racist crap, you can say "Free speech is great and all, but i'm not paying to host you and it's damaging my business" and kick them out.
You are making stuff up. "hate speech" is not a thing in the first amendment. Hate speech is protected. There are countless court rulings on this.
Exhibit A: "in 1977 a federal court upheld the right of neo-Nazis to goose-step right through the town of Skokie, Illinois, which had a disproportionately large number of Holocaust survivors as residents."
>>In this country there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently.
In particular, application of "fighting words" pretty much requires that the speaker and listener were in close physical proximity, such that a fight could actually occur. Not really relevant to twitter, for the most part.
