Re: [libreplanet-discuss] helping newcomers start blogs - but where?

[J.B. Nicholson]

John Rooke wrote:
> Anyone who visited the Daily Stormer prior to its takedown knows that
> there is plenty of evidence to vindicate Cloudflare's decision.

None of which you name, point to, nor do you address the issue of this 
being extrajudicial which is the chief problem here. This merely confirms 
the danger in hosting with someone else no matter how righteous their 
statements appear to be or how much they turn on those statements when 
emotions run high.

> As for Chomsky, he may not have "kicked anyone off the internet", but he
> has to my certain knowledge, used his power to silence critics.

The problem here is one of attacking character as a means of distracting 
from the underlying point (an issue I should have made more clear in my 
initial response): even if Chomsky had "kicked someone off the Internet" as 
CloudFlare's CEO says he did, that wouldn't render what Chomsky says about 
freedom of speech to be wrong. It's arguing by proxy to point out that 
Chomsky doesn't follow his own line, essentially saying that Chomsky may be 
hypocritical and hoping that the hypocrisy will magically transfer into 
undermining the support for freedom of speech even in the light of 
objectionable messages.

People try this approach with software freedom too -- when they can't make 
a good counterargument for software freedom they argue against a noteworthy 
free software activist, such as Richard Stallman, by pointing to a 
recording where he says something untoward, or one can see him doing 
something one typically doesn't see public presenters do. This doesn't read 
on the underlying argument being made, it's a distraction and attempt to 
graft whatever unpleasantness one finds in the speaker's behavior to the 
idea, thus obviating the need for any discussion of the idea on its own merits.