What is the practical application of this?

Death threats too?

Criminal threats are typically actionable. They indicate a concrete act is intended.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater?

A famously incorrect example of unprotected speech. It actually is protected speech, it’s just a catchy phrase that people never seem to look into beyond a surface level.

it’s unfathomable to me that anyone would defend it

Because at least half of the country I live in would love nothing more to apply these same ideas of restricting the flow of ideas and speech to me. To their mind, my liberal lefty atheistic ideals are diametrically opposed to their world view. To their understanding of the world, I’m actively making the world a worse place just by being in it. I have actively benefited from the freedom of thought and speech that I support while growing up in a deep red and deeply religious small town.

What you should be asking yourself is why these abhorrent ideas get any traction at all. The public square should be filled with good ideas. Put your ideas out for how to make society better. Put out your critique and world view. The speech you hate so much should be drowned out by all the good speech. The fact that it’s not, and has garnered any sort of appeal points to a failure on society’s part, writ large. We have an obligation to push society forward and be proactive in guiding society where we want it to go. Like I said in another comment, the hearts of men can’t be legislated away; they have to be won.

We clearly have different philosophies on the value of freedom of thought. I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere with this.

Surely you don’t propose atomising response to the individual level

I do.

I don’t know what you want from me man. To say nazis are bad? No shit, that’s obvious.

You ask where I draw the line. Between actions and ideas. I can’t make this any more clear.

Nazi held a sign at a protest? Shitty, but not illegal.

Nazi hurts someone? Illegal.

And I would argue that if these ideas are gaining any kind of foothold broadly, the rest of the citizenry is abjectly failing to meet their social obligations. Society doesn’t get to just coast; we all have to be out there every day expressing and pushing for what society should be. Make the public square so full of good ideas that the fringe ass holes are drowned out.

And the harassment that you describe is possible because too many of us don’t engage and make clear by our actions and speech what isn’t socially acceptable.

It is an uncomfortable idea that the rise in authoritarianism around the world is somehow our fault. No snowflake and avalanches and all that. But if we are sleepwalking into a world where garbage in the public square isn’t fought against by overwhelming numbers of people, we kind of get what we deserve as a whole and everyone suffers, especially those that are disadvantaged. We are responsible.

And no, it is not good enough to simply hand over the responsibility to “fix” this to the state-sanctioned-violence branch and your local paramilitary police force. The hearts of men can’t be legislated away; they must be won. With hard work and public display. And if we try to coast and just “keep it out of the public” these ideologies will definitely fester in private.

I don’t have to support a group’s actions to still believe they have the same human rights of freedom of speech and thought that others do. There’s a reason that human rights apply to everyone, even prisoners. Even monsters. Stripping away fundamental rights from the “right” people is not a moral stance.

I defend their human rights for the same reason I defend yours.

Best of friends!

what’s the upside

That all groups are equally protected under the law, whether you like them or not. I’m sure AIPAC would love to designate supporting the liberation of Palestine a hate crime. I’m sure that corporate lobbyists would love to designate unions as a violent and disruptive organizations.

Would you defend the rise of ISIS in the US for the same reasons

If they are committing concrete acts of violence, no. If they rise as a political body, then yes.

That is certainly a way to do it, but I don’t think limiting public expression is good. Bad things done with noble intent are still bad things.

Those things are bad and that shouldn’t be a law.

I usually hate being downvoted; it makes me feel dumb. But this is one of those opinions I’m very confident in, so I’ll live with downvotes.

Can’t prosecute people for what they think or want, only what they do. And again, you wouldn’t want that to be the case.

why tf they weren’t getting arrested

Because being an asshole isn’t illegal in America. And you wouldn’t want it to be, either.

Judging by the crash test videos of the Cybertruck, this does not surprise me in the least. Why make cars safe when you could just not save some money?

Something about that reflection gave me the heebie-jeebies, even though its right.

Prompt: a cozy version of snorter
Negative Prompt: ac_neg1 ac_neg2 negativeXL_D unaestheticXL_Sky3.1

It wouldn’t be FOSS because a landing page with nothing but content isn’t software. I’m referring to the site at blender.org vs the source code for an application at a git repository.

I would suggest actually naming the license under which it is released if you’re talking about the website that is generated by your software. If you’re talking about the content of a website describing your project, like a landing page or something like that, I’d either attribute copyright to who wrote the content, or release it under a Creative Commons license such as CC-BY-NC.

No, I don’t think so.

What primaries?