Hitler employed propaganda videos because they worked. Terrorist groups employ propaganda videos because they work. The fact of the matter is that some videos equal indoctrination; people would not have become extremist if they were constantly bombarded by these messages in the media.

By the time someone throws a punch it's too late. Take a look at the kind of violence that took place in France and ask yourself: how many protesters committed violence versus how many were arrested. The fact of the matter is, there are many more people doing the indoctrination and violence attacks than getting arrested. If the police were arresting 100% of people committing violence then it would be a different story. These protests are growing, not shrinking.

No one is that dumb. You will be hard pressed to find direct/immediate causality between repeated demonization against ethnic groups and the subsequent violence protests that ensue. But there is also no denying that when people post videos that incite hate against ethnic groups, coupled with a caption that says "Fucking Jews!" it tends to have a real effect. I just saw a video spread on Facebook that claimed to show Israeli soldiers burying Palestinian children alive with exactly that caption. Now, the soldiers in question were not Israeli (the Jordanian flag on the uniform kind of gave that away) but most of the viewers did not catch on. The video received over 1,500 shares with 1,200 comments to the effect of "Jewish bloodsuckers, we should end them". So sure, I can't count how many of the people who viewed this video went on to commit violence against Jews. But I can guess many of them were negatively affected and a sizable portion of them went out to protest, and a portion of them turned to violence.

It's no coincidence that Hitler employed a strong propaganda campaign. If this kind of crap didn't work, he wouldn't have bothered. We need to admit that words, photos and videos make a difference and do lead to increased racism and eventually physical violence. We need to find a way to balance these concerns with Freedom of Speech.

I'm not saying your argument is invalid, nor should you imply mine is. I'm saying that there are legitimate concerns on both sides and it is wrong for pro-Anonymity proponents to dismiss the other point of view out of hand. There are legitimate concerns about how Freedom of Speech is abused to spread hate against a visible ethnic groups which, in some instances, has led to violence.

You might disagree with how we should tackle this problem, but you shouldn't dismiss the problem exists altogether. I look forward to suggestions on how we can tackle these problems.

The people on the receiving end of said hate speech would disagree, especially when it results in physical attacks on them as has been the case in France recently.

In practice, what ends up happening is that police is caught off guard and arrests are made after people have already died. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not complaining about words that hurt one's fillings. I'm complaining about words that lead to physically violence/death. When protesters yell "Kill the Jews" and proceed to attack a nearby synagogue full of people I think we've reach a point things have gone too far.

When protesters yell "Kill the Jews" and proceed to attack a nearby synagogue full of people I think we've reach the point where it's worse than yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.

Words have an impact.

In the case of bullying it has led to multiple deaths. In the case of terrorist advocacy, it has led to repeated violent/racist protests that has led to countless people getting hurt and in some cases dying. No one should have the right to advocate violence against all members of an ethnic group. Just look at what's happening in France.

I don't care about people's feelings getting hurt. I care about people getting physically hurt. These are legitimate concerns for which you have offered no solutions.

You disregard all the harm that anonymity causes online, from bullying, to hate speech, to terrorism.

I'm not saying the argument for Freedom of Expression is irrelevant, but the other perspective has legitimate concerns as well.

Pro-anonymity advocates have been saying for years that Freedom of Expression will fix all ills but we've seen a substantial rise of bullying, hate speech and terrorism-advocacy in the past decade. Saying that people will find the truth so long as it's out there, somewhere, does not seem to be working. Great in theory but doesn't work in practice.

We need to find a middle ground that will help curtain online abuse with minimal impact on Freedom of Speech, but the statue quo is not sustainable.

Sounds like a problem for insurance companies, not the government. What is the difference between the two kinds of insurances except for the price? If you drive someone "occasionally" should your insurance really cost as much as the full commercial insurance does?

I actually think that's a good thing.

The "disposable economy" will currently live in causes a lot of domestic waste, not to mention the havoc it wrecks on domestic employment.

Yes, we'll buy less widgets. But in return employment rates will rise, and we'll shift to higher-quality merchandise.

It's one thing to buy a poor-quality product when the competition is twice the price. It's another thing when the price difference is only 25%.

Right. So the NBA has the right to ask him to sell the company because regardless of due process the bad publicity will cost them money. What they do not have the right to do is fine him $2.5 million... because legally speaking he did nothing wrong.

Somewhere down the line, someone in the NBA thought they had the right to "fire" Sterling but in actually all they had the right to do is buy him out. That's not the same thing. The way they went about this is all wrong.

You're right, but it was illegal nonetheless. If this kind of thing went to court (e.g. police smash down your door, find drugs) the evidence would be inadmissible.

What is said was wrong, but I think it should be emphasized the recording *is* illegal and the man is due no less legal rights/protection than anyone else. For the NBA or anyone else to penalize him based on this thought crime and an illegal recording is wrong in its own right.

Agreed. It's one thing to be racist in your mind. It's another thing to act on that racism. The recording of the phone call was illegal according to California law (which requires both parties to agree to be recorded), it was a private conversation and there is no proof that his beliefs have in any way translated to negative actions.

I am in favor of slapping the book at anyone who abuses their official capacity to spread racism but in this case Sterling actually *didn't* want these messages being spread, and yet he's being punished for them. The media only seems to care about money, not morality or justice.

Let me be the first one to congratulate them. So long as those idiots stick to keyboard attacks instead of suicide bombings I think we are moving in the right direction.

If anyone is dumb enough to connect nuclear power plants to the internet ... well, let's just say we'll learn that lesson and never make that mistake again.