If it's illegal prosecute it; if not, let people have their shitty opinions in peace. Why does seemingly everybody have to virtue signal and cut peaceful people out of civil society?
SLPC lists[1] as "hate groups" people that think English should be official language of the US (a bad idea, but is it really "promoting violence"?), people that insist on necessity of immigration reform, people that legitimately disagree and criticize other policies, like immigration or taxation or international trade. They even designated presidential candidate Ben Carson as "extremist" (that got them so much bad press they had to backpedal and apologize).
And SPLC designations have been used to boot sites from platforms like Google, Paypal, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Don't get me wrong, there are true hate-mongers there, and on SPLC lists, but far from all of them. There are a lot of organizations there that just promote unpopular, unorthodox, and sometimes outright kooky, but not hateful or violent, views. Interestingly enough, such outright violent and openly militant groups as BAMN or antifa are not there on the list.
All this looks not like attempt to produce less hate but an attempt to establish political control over the internet. And I remember the times when the internet community was proud to be censorship-free. How the times changed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designat...
We, as a reasonable majority, can disagree with this assessment.
That we do not have perfect information, and absolute agreement, is no reason for private organizations to not exercise their own rights to not associate with those they dislike.
If this were the government at work... I'd agree that extremely high standards ought to be in place, but as is? No, I don't think organizations deserve protection since they are flimsy things, easily discarded when PR turns against them.
None of the white supremacists is being banned as an individual, only specific institutions that they've chosen to raise up.
Who is "we"? Do you think the right to speak should be defined by the majority? Too bad the US was explicitly founded on the diametrically opposing principle. To be sure, they even explicitly wrote it in the constitution, that it is not how things are to be decided. But what they knew, anyway...
> is no reason for private organizations to not exercise their own rights to not associate with those they dislike.
They can exercise whatever they like. But then we get partisan war on the internet, instead of cooperation, with everybody hating everybody (there are many hot topic issues in politics, and once using access to infrastructure like DNS is politicized, there's no stopping of it). And where nobody can be sure that they won't be target of the unpersoning campaign next. It's not the internet I would like to see. Legally, of course, they are within their rights. But not everything that is legal is a good thing to do. Turning access to internet into political battleground is not a smart thing to do. It will hurt everybody.
> None of the white supremacists is being banned as an individual, only specific institutions that they've chosen to raise up.
How does it matter? If Google seizes domain from nazis as organization, because they wanted to, what prevents them from seizing domain from an individual person, who, say, has controversial political views? Or espouses controversial ideas that are outside current scientific consensus? Or merely criticizes Google management a bit more harshly than they'd like? It is a logical next step, if no pushback happens on this one, it would expand. People are all scared about content provides limiting access for commercial reasons, what about political reasons?