If you surveyed how many citizens would support law against hate speech, it would probably be a significant number. And prospective citizens as well. So I don't think the problem with your proposal has anything to do with people in favor of shari'a law. It would not work with plain Judeo-Christian European European-descended folks.

OK. The folks who run Project Shield have been informed!

I've met Godwin and he'd be horrified that you are trying to shield Trump by invoking his name. The world doesn't need an automatic method to suppress discussion of atrocities, and Mike never meant what he said to be one. In fact, this is a quote of Mike directly:

If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.

There's also Google's Project Shield, which is free for journalists.

That's a really good point. This service sure isn't going to throw someone off for being attacked too much. I'll ask someone at Google to expedite the process.

By the way, I've sworn to much the same text in my police deputy's oath. I volunteer for disaster services. It didn't limit me from opposing any law, I just have to follow them while they are still on the books.

Your next move, should you choose to make it, is to decry that if we actually had standards for citizenship (like every other goddamn country on Earth) we'd have to kick out all existing citizens that don't meet those standards, which is ludicrous. No one handles birthright citizenship the same way they handle citizenship through naturalization, and the lack of options for stateless citizens makes that idea cruel and untenable.

With all due respect, you're talking to yourself now. I wasn't thinking of this point at all.

The actual statement is "support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States". Now, obviously, you personally do not approve of every law, nor could anyone even know them all. If you swear "true faith and allegiance" to them you are swearing to follow and uphold the law, not to refrain from opposing it in a peaceful political manner as is supported by that very text. The only way as a citizen that you could actually break the first amendment would be if you were in a government position, because it's directed toward congress rather than the people. So, the typical prospective citizen can swear allegiance to that amendment with complete confidence that they will never be in a position for that to matter.

Some people call that "democracy.

Yes, but democracy doesn't mean that you have a right not to be criticized, shunned, fired, boycotted, and abused in any other lawful manner for your speech. However, this wasn't speech. It was deliberate spreading of falsehood and cheating the moderation system. Who in their right mind would not deplore such corruption?

Hillary did not say the c.p. time statement. It was the Mayor of New York who said that. It's clear that Hillary didn't like it from her own comment, calling it cautious politician time.

If I understand this correctly, Akamai threw Krebs out because Akamai could not handle the DDS. This means I'm never sending any business to Akamai because they can't handle it properly. But it doesn't mean Krebs is off the air for long.

For example, I bet Cloudflare would take him on. They've differentiated themselves on the ability to handle DDS.

You are starting with the concept that everyone has a right to their own political opinion, and extending that to "nobody should take any action due to to offense over anyone else's political opinion". The second does not follow from the first. Folks who take offense and act upon it are not hypocrites, those who see the offense and refuse to act could be cowards.

That's self-contradictory. The first amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

By the very text of that amendment we could not do what you are proposing.

I used to consider you a decent person.

This is more than a bit rich, because you are saying this as the Anonymous Coward of Slashdot, a role reserved for those who will not stand behind their own speech.

I try really hard to be the kind of person whom I will like when I get up in the morning and look in the mirror. I care little about the opinions of others outside of my family.

I have certainly come to deplore some behavior by people who claim to be Libertarians, but whom I classify as "me Libertarians", meaning they value their personal freedom even when it comes at the expense of the freedom of others.

I'm intolerant of "Radical" Islam. They're trying to kill western civilization not embrace it.

You are confusing belief or a creed ("radical" Islam) with action. Once some folks conspire to blow something up, or build a bomb, that is action and you are encouraged not to tolerate it. But just belief? The problem would be that if we started down that path, where would we stop? For example, the Eucharist is considered by some folks (not me) to be an act of ritual cannibalism. But they're really just drinking some wine and eating a cracker.

click here