"HATE" crime legislation IS 'hate'-ful....

[Scott Mayers]

I don't have to agree to other group's opinions to know that they should have a right to a freedom to speak. I am extremely pissed at the present laws being PUSHED upon us non-democratically (other than the 'cult' as the minimal individual). Yesterday (June 27, 2019), CBC announced the new internet legislation telling us indirectly that the capacity of the polices here to IMPOSE REDIRECTION of our searches through Google by specifically targeting those who search for 'trigger searches' that tell us they KNOW what 'hate' is. This is VERY DANGEROUS to our DEMOCRACY!! It is itself a VIOLENT LAW and those proposing it ARE NECESSARILY the 'haters' by DEFINING their political counter-opinions they approve of to be treated as extreme  criminals. 

Now while this may be considered 'good' by some, I assure you that when we have increasing 'MODERATION" of our own 'free speech' (like at the CBC's forums that hide and protect their secret censors of their own POLITICAL anti-democratic impositions), we are DOOMED in MORE than any concern of terrorism. In fact, this only AMPLIFIES it as it PROVES to those being 'criminalized' that their IS a 'conspiracy' of 'hate' with specific INTEREST groups. These groups are religious in nature themselves (even under potential denial) because they impose that WE THE PEOPLE should default some FAITH in some specific humans as 'superior' to others. 

Also, they are giving policing a power here of 'superior' judges by enabling them to decide what OUR rights are of 'privacy' and 'freedom'. 

 

Today, the news added more proof of the counter-hate evidence of this behavior by targeting some Nationalist group (Canadian Nationalist Party). What is ironic is THAT the thinking of these arrogant extremists making these laws ARE NATIONALISTS. Just because it is composed of different cults of SOME subset of competing groups, they ALL agree to 'disagree' with individual differences while they are not directly in power. But collectively, these actual HATE groups are constituted here to with such power and momentum that they are doing completely the opposite of the American means at every step of whistleblowers there regarding privacy and anti-free speech.: For every new realization of the American public about abuses of independent powers in policing or present government opportunists, we are CREATING means to spy and harm our 'citizens' here!

 

Like I said, I don't agree with certain views. But the way these laws and behaviors of other issues of our governments are making me concerned about these arrogant idiots in power imposing MORE anti-democratic laws. All parties here are 'conservatives' of just different subsets: so now even the NDP lacks concern for individual democracy. I don't know what we can do...but the way things are, the parties here are acting worse than the very Chinese by our own HIDDEN means to CENSOR our communications. 

 

I wish others here would get involved and try to overrule this danger. I already know that what HAS been done already limits us here from seeing much of the Internet we saw only ten years ago. And it IS of a select subset of religiously-propagated groups that operate as though they are 'democratically' shared of us all. 

 

We need to redress our Constitution and the SELECT 'supremist' groups being empowered by it to be disempowered if they continue to do this without OUR CONSENT! Is there any hope?

[Queenmandy85]

Forgive me but I have not had my coffee so I did not understand all that you were trying to say. If I understand, the gist was you do not believe the government should censor communications deemed to be unacceptable to society. We have a tradition of censorship. Communists were censored in Quebec, all the good movies when I was a teenager were censored or restricted, and Roman Catholics, dissenters and Jews were restricted from certain government offices. Our Head of State is prohibited from being Roman Catholic.

The individualism and unrestricted free speech is an American construct. It works for them but in Canada, we, as a society have decided that beating up kids because they are gay and assaulting a woman because she is wearing a head scarf, is unacceptable. (HM often wears a head scarf). We believe there is no excuse for hate. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Forgive me but I have not had my coffee so I did not understand all that you were trying to say. If I understand, the gist was you do not believe the government should censor communications deemed to be unacceptable to society. We have a tradition of censorship. Communists were censored in Quebec, all the good movies when I was a teenager were censored or restricted, and Roman Catholics, dissenters and Jews were restricted from certain government offices. Our Head of State is prohibited from being Roman Catholic.

The individualism and unrestricted free speech is an American construct. It works for them but in Canada, we, as a society have decided that beating up kids because they are gay and assaulting a woman because she is wearing a head scarf, is unacceptable. (HM often wears a head scarf). We believe there is no excuse for hate. 

There's no excuse for assault.  Hate is personal, and the government should have no say in it.

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

There's no excuse for assault.  Hate is personal, and the government should have no say in it.

Hate can be personal, and still be restricted from being expressed.  Expressing one's personal hate in the public sphere leads to assault.  If Bissonette had not had access to anti-immigrant/anti-Islam rhetoric, would he have decided to shoot up a Mosque?   Doubtful, given that until he was exposed to this rhetoric, he was not particularly extreme.

I agree that keeping hate 'underground' is problematic, too, but in my opinion it is less problematic than allowing it unfettered expression.

[Scott Mayers]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Forgive me but I have not had my coffee so I did not understand all that you were trying to say. If I understand, the gist was you do not believe the government should censor communications deemed to be unacceptable to society. We have a tradition of censorship. Communists were censored in Quebec, all the good movies when I was a teenager were censored or restricted, and Roman Catholics, dissenters and Jews were restricted from certain government offices. Our Head of State is prohibited from being Roman Catholic.

The individualism and unrestricted free speech is an American construct. It works for them but in Canada, we, as a society have decided that beating up kids because they are gay and assaulting a woman because she is wearing a head scarf, is unacceptable. (HM often wears a head scarf). We believe there is no excuse for hate. 

The 'freedom of speech' law in the U.S. was originally made to prevent SPECIFIC religious idealists of their own arrogant definitions of 'hate' to be denied as a GROUNDS for making laws. The same kind of thinkers as yourself has actually lead to an erosion or the original intents. 

'unacceptable' is defined NOT by the people but by subsets of GROUPS that ARE religious but feigning a secular air as yourself. A belief in a 'queen' as superior here and that WE are 'commoners', suffices to point this out. And the LITERAL facts of these being treated as though they are trivial is just to HIDE these facts. 

It appears that your first argument is to assert that BECAUSE there are specific groups being 'denied' freedoms of the past that this is what we SHOULD continue to do out of habit. I assure you YOUR habit is non-representative of each and every person. 

I've never beat up on anyone and have been more of a target by those asserting PROTECTION of these supposed innocent victims. Comparing collections of things where some ARE 'hate' that some agree to but with half of other things that aren't is a form of rhetorical sales tactics that is most functional of those making horoscopes. Not all of us are vulnerable to this con. Most of the TYPES of protections for 'victims' relates merely to very self-styled people who purposely STEREOTYPE the very classes of people they are feigning to represent: like how 'gay'-ness is something about the extreme effeminate types who 'fit' with the very extremes themselves. [not all homosexuals are happy parade loving 'pride' seekers, for instance.] I don't approve of others wearing any garb in civil public spaces that openly demonstrate their own BIAS: What should I expect of getting sincere help of some strong religious person of a SPECIFIC genetic/cultural belief should they be in a position in government that dislikes my NON-religious stance? If being 'uniformed' is a crime for a public office, the different 'freedoms' of those who demand distinction is pure snobbery and always BLEEDS out by how they would use their overt position to deny others the equal help they need in similar circumstances. 

[Queenmandy85]

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Hate is personal, and the government should have no say in it.

Why not? Hate is not personal. It is toxic and creates fractures in society. It leads to discrimination such as we are seeing in Quebec. It leads to Islamophobia and homophobia. We have decided that the best way to achieve Peace, Order and Good Government is to foster a society that discourages hate. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Hate can be personal, and still be restricted from being expressed.  Expressing one's personal hate in the public sphere leads to assault.  If Bissonette had not had access to anti-immigrant/anti-Islam rhetoric, would he have decided to shoot up a Mosque?   Doubtful, given that until he was exposed to this rhetoric, he was not particularly extreme.

I agree that keeping hate 'underground' is problematic, too, but in my opinion it is less problematic than allowing it unfettered expression.

I disagree.  We are talking about government and laws here, not Facebook/Twitter/MLW, etc.  They can do what they like, censor whomever they want, as part of their freedom of expression.

Laws, on the other hand, should not limit freedom of expression until there is incitement.  If I say I hate someone, and you beat them up, that's your fault, not mine.

I agree the line is not a distinct one, but I don't believe in limiting freedom of speech/expression based on the vagaries of some semi-unhinged loser.

 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why not? Hate is not personal. It is toxic and creates fractures in society. It leads to discrimination such as we are seeing in Quebec. It leads to Islamophobia and homophobia. We have decided that the best way to achieve Peace, Order and Good Government is to foster a society that discourages hate. 

Foster whatever you want.  Discourage it too. 

I disagree that hate is not personal.  It seems to me it's one of the most personal emotions one can feel. 

[Scott Mayers]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Hate can be personal, and still be restricted from being expressed.  Expressing one's personal hate in the public sphere leads to assault.  If Bissonette had not had access to anti-immigrant/anti-Islam rhetoric, would he have decided to shoot up a Mosque?   Doubtful, given that until he was exposed to this rhetoric, he was not particularly extreme.

I agree that keeping hate 'underground' is problematic, too, but in my opinion it is less problematic than allowing it unfettered expression.

The opposite is true: those OTHER groups of similar 'distinct' but competing beliefs of those permitted protection, will have PROOF in action of a system that selectively conspires against them. This also is INTENTIONALLY being used to demonstrate the ABSURD extremes where possible even where they are non-representative of the whole. The WAY of also attempting to show the absurd-ONLY cases, raises concern to whether these groups aren't themselves 'staged' to appear absurd. 

We have no way to determine HIDDEN censors and when they are also being protected from accountability, the public cannot confirm nor deny the charges. This is NON-democratic AND , because ONLY the devout moralist certainly is linked to some belief in Nature as HAVING 'morality', this means that those who believe specific speech IS 'hate' without particular proof case by case, it is being used BY some real SPECIFIC groups who define themselves by (1) Ethnic roots, (2) and associated religion of their GENETIC ancestors, and (3) IMPOSE these begged 'good' stereotypes as though we have to trust them but ignore the 'bad' ones. This is ANTI-LOGICAL, not to mention religious!

People CAN be defused of their beliefs with sincerely listening and participating without the counter abuses. Most who are minority minority who DO trend towards conspiracy questions are themselves being propped up BECAUSE of the accusations of 'hate'. This is the identical effect of one accusing another of being a 'troll' when the accuser is actually originating the trolling by making violent accusations which only end more reasonably with the accused actually ACTING out in the way they are being accused. 

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

We are talking about government and laws here, not Facebook/Twitter/MLW, etc

Actually, I'm not clear what we are talking about.  The OP provided no cites, and I cannot find a news story from CBC about "internet legislation".   The closest I could find was a story from May 21, about an 'overhaul' of digital legislation, where the focus of the story seems to be more about market disruption although this paragraph also mentions hate and extremism:   

Quote

Bains said the ten-point digital charter will lay out the government's basic principles for online governance, including universal access, safety and security, user control over personal data, transparency and portability and keeping digital platforms free from hate and violent extremism.

Link.

Assuming this is the story (perhaps the OP will provide a link), do you think it's unreasonable to keep internet platforms free from hate and violent extremism?  Should ISIS and Combat18 be allowed to post freely on Facebook or Twitter?

[Scott Mayers]

12 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why not? Hate is not personal. It is toxic and creates fractures in society. It leads to discrimination such as we are seeing in Quebec. It leads to Islamophobia and homophobia. We have decided that the best way to achieve Peace, Order and Good Government is to foster a society that discourages hate. 

PLEASE define 'hate'. And if YOU are so much wiser to know, what makes your opinion MORE valid than others? This climate of accusations these days is like watching prosecutors who ADVOCATE blindly to serve the public as though they are robots who are required to do whatever it takes to get any accused/charged to be persecuted (ie 'prosecuted'...same etymology). We don't need ADVOCATES that act as POLICE, PROSECUTORS, JUDGE AND JURY, prior to the actual evidence. And when this censoring is done without a need for DEFENCE, we have BECOME the 'evil' countries we act so arrogantly prima dona about. 

[Queenmandy85]

Never let it be said I am consistent. 

8 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

A belief in a 'queen' as superior here and that WE are 'commoners', suffices to point this out.

While I am a militant Monarchist, I will concede we have a strong democratic component in Canada. With that in mind, the current restrictions on hate speech and hate groups is the policy of a democratically elected government and is a reflection of the mood of a large segment of society. 

The best remedy for legislation you don't like is to get involved. I did not like the erosion of the powers of the Queen so I ran for the Conservative nomination in my riding. That my candidacy never succeeded is a true demonstration of the democratic will.

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

People CAN be defused of their beliefs with sincerely listening and participating without the counter abuses.

I used to think that was possible too, and then I started participating on online forums.  Very few people *sincerely* listen and even fewer are interested in being 'defused'.   It seems the most effective countermeasure to hatred is for the hater to actually meet and get to know some members of the hated group.  

Quote

Most who are minority minority who DO trend towards conspiracy questions are themselves being propped up BECAUSE of the accusations of 'hate'. This is the identical effect of one accusing another of being a 'troll' when the accuser is actually originating the trolling by making violent accusations which only end more reasonably with the accused actually ACTING out in the way they are being accused. 

??  This is hard to follow; sounds like you are suggesting that if I say to my White Supremacist neighbor (who pro-actively insults and threatens non-whites) that he is a White Supremacist, it will then be my fault if he goes out and kills someone.   Meanwhile, his peer group, who validate and encourage his hatred, are blameless and entitled to foment hatred?

Edited June 28, 2019 by dialamah

[Scott Mayers]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Actually, I'm not clear what we are talking about.  The OP provided no cites, and I cannot find a news story from CBC about "internet legislation".   The closest I could find was a story from May 21, about an 'overhaul' of digital legislation, where the focus of the story seems to be more about market disruption although this paragraph also mentions hate and extremism:   

Link.

Assuming this is the story (perhaps the OP will provide a link), do you think it's unreasonable to keep internet platforms free from hate and violent extremism?  Should ISIS and Combat18 be allowed to post freely on Facebook or Twitter?

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/federal-support-for-innovative-online-initiative-to-prevent-radicalization-to-violence-699803901.html

The above is yesterday (or the day before?) topic in the news on this. It presented that Ralph Goodale is presenting powers to have what is considered 'hate' groups online to use what might be called 'triggers' of presumably prototype behavior of 'terrorists'. This is an EXCUSE to GET the power only, not to do what is merely being claimed.This is because it is being done IN SECRET and through political/religious/cultural interests. WE the people will have no means to know when or where we are being monitored AND, from my own researching and experiments, ARE being REDIRECTED away from our intentional searches already! An example relates to forums that are considered neutral non-affiliated political groups. We are being successfully redirected to sites that are only a subset of the actual sites and get blocked out of the actual ones that others may see from different areas. This is noticeable first if you notice more strict country interests rather than the topic. Oddly, for instance, we get a highly unusual redirection to Australia here in Canada for a lot of these (like the skeptic sites I like). I can tell you more but it would expose something about HOW I determined it. Start talking to your computer science friends more to learn. 

The second topic regarding today can be found at:  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rcmp-hate-elections-canada-canadian-nationalist-party-1.5193358. Please tell me after watching what you see if you think just what the guy of the group they presented was actually saying anything with 'hate' or rationalization based on realistic human behaviors. [conspiracies are not ALL hard to not to be thought of as unreal or we wouldn't have had the 'Nationalist popularity of the past. Note that our 'pride' groups based on specific interests that tie ALL people of the same 'kind' as UNIQUE, whether it be of the Queen, the Catholic or Anglican stronghold of the established families here OR those, like the Jewish-nationalist (Pro-Israeli/Anti-Palestinian) groups, all OPT to promote ISOLATED laws: like to promote one's one distinct language and culture as though they were universal. ....reigniting dead or dying languages or cultures that the traditionalists fear they are losing to the majority PROGRESSIVE 'cultures'. 

 

[Queenmandy85]

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I used to think that was possible too, and then I started participating on online forums.  Very few people *sincerely* listen and even fewer are interested in being 'defused'.   It seems the most effective countermeasure to hatred is for the hater to actually meet and get to know some members of the hated group

As always, you show refreshing wisdom. 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Actually, I'm not clear what we are talking about.  The OP provided no cites, and I cannot find a news story from CBC about "internet legislation".   The closest I could find was a story from May 21, about an 'overhaul' of digital legislation, where the focus of the story seems to be more about market disruption although this paragraph also mentions hate and extremism:   

Link.

Assuming this is the story (perhaps the OP will provide a link), do you think it's unreasonable to keep internet platforms free from hate and violent extremism?  Should ISIS and Combat18 be allowed to post freely on Facebook or Twitter?

I do.  A person ought to be able to express themselves even if their expression is something that disgusts me.  Facebook and Twitter have rules that they can enforce, but until there is an incitement to do harm, an expression of hatred is not something that should be legislated against. 

For instance, (as this will inevitably drift towards Islam, and you've already mentioned a mosque shooting and ISIS) I don't care if a Muslim says he hates gays, blasphemers or apostates.  As soon as he talks about punishment, that would be incitement and open to government action.  It's the same with White Supremacists.  They can bang on about how much they hate Blacks and Jews as much as they want, as far as I am concerned. As soon as they advocate doing something about it, ditto.

When white supremacists hold a peaceful march and Antifa starts a fight, it's Antifa who are in the wrong.  If Muslims want to peacefully protest against LGBT teachings in schools in the UK, and the EDL starts a fight, then the EDL are in the wrong.

[Scott Mayers]

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Never let it be said I am consistent. 

While I am a militant Monarchist, I will concede we have a strong democratic component in Canada. With that in mind, the current restrictions on hate speech and hate groups is the policy of a democratically elected government and is a reflection of the mood of a large segment of society. 

The best remedy for legislation you don't like is to get involved. I did not like the erosion of the powers of the Queen so I ran for the Conservative nomination in my riding. That my candidacy never succeeded is a true demonstration of the democratic will.

We do not have a system where we get to participate in development of laws DIRECTLY (like 'proposition' and FORCED petitions that require action in the U.S.). Our 'Constitution' was created without concern of anyone BUT the arrogant 'monarchist' such as yourself, the wealthy EASTERN Ontario and Quebec HISTORICALLY related peoples of those Catholic and Anglican (small catholics) who BELIEVE in AUTHORITATIVE TOP-DOWN dictatorial thinking. [Ironically, this is 'republican' in that the 'republic' concept means only REPRESENTATION FOR the people, as though we were all stupid cattle that should be 'handled' and denigrated into snowflakes that are easier to manipulate. 

I tried to get involved and this is the best I can get. Even the NDP I originally hoped for turns out to be a fraudulent set of 'conservatives' in sheeps clothing. They represent the 'moderate' religious extremes who WOULD be more 'conservative' and anti-democratic should they have the power. [I at least still have hope for the U.S.'s "Democrats" in their variety.]

If you like queens and gods, then why should you ever require a government at all? I think that if politicians can use these as justifications remotely, they are ANTI-people and are manipulators who use these 'beliefs' as means to justify the irrationality of themselves where convenient.

[Scott Mayers]

9 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

As always, you show refreshing wisdom. 

I said as much already. Why are you not paying attention?

[Queenmandy85]

8 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I tried to get involved and this is the best I can get

If you want to change a law or policy, run for Parliament. If you cannot convince enough people you are right, then maybe you should entertain the possibility you are wrong. 

Just because I believe the monarch is chosen by God, doesn't mean it is so. Governments survive by doing what most people want. That is democracy.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Queenmandy85

[Dougie93]

43 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Never let it be said I am consistent. 

While I am a militant Monarchist, I will concede we have a strong democratic component in Canada. With that in mind, the current restrictions on hate speech and hate groups is the policy of a democratically elected government and is a reflection of the mood of a large segment of society. 

The best remedy for legislation you don't like is to get involved. I did not like the erosion of the powers of the Queen so I ran for the Conservative nomination in my riding. That my candidacy never succeeded is a true demonstration of the democratic will.

There has been no erosion of the powers of the Queen, quite the opposite in fact,  as all this censorship by the Liberal establishment is in fact done in the name of the Queen's Peace.

When the whims of "society" are invoked to shut people up and have the Mounties throw them in jail if they don't, that is done entirely on Her Majestyi's authority.

[dialamah]

18 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I do.  A person ought to be able to express themselves even if their expression is something that disgusts me.  Facebook and Twitter have rules that they can enforce, but until there is an incitement to do harm, an expression of hatred is not something that should be legislated against

I understand what you are saying, and agree also with your earlier statement that the line can be hard to define.  The problem I see with organizations like Combat18 or ISIS being free to post on social media is that the "public" face of the page is pretty sanitized.  It draws people in, and as time goes they become either disgusted - as you say - or they become believers and go ever deeper behind the scenes, where the calls to action are.  This is how recruitment works, and social media is a great tool for extremists.  They certainly aren't going to draw people in by saying, right-up-front, 'we are looking for soldiers to fight and kill.'

[Scott Mayers]

32 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I used to think that was possible too, and then I started participating on online forums.  Very few people *sincerely* listen and even fewer are interested in being 'defused'.   It seems the most effective countermeasure to hatred is for the hater to actually meet and get to know some members of the hated group.  

??  This is hard to follow; sounds like you are suggesting that if I say to my White Supremacist neighbor (who pro-actively insults and threatens non-whites) that he is a White Supremacist, it will then be my fault if he goes out and kills someone.   Meanwhile, his peer group, who validate and encourage his hatred, are blameless and entitled to foment hatred?

[I wish the content of the conversations here were automatically quoted or linked. It's hard for others to follow without reading each and every prior post linked to determine what and who said what.] 

Okay, this was to me in two parts. I already agree AND DO operate well with communicating and diffusing those considered 'trolls' on other sites. It is effective when people voluntarily do this. 

 

As to the second part, the kinds of extreme white supremacist is rare, almost always get their 'power' BY the very systems promoting cultural/religious SEGREGATION. As to your specific example, instead of posing a DEROGATORY AND OVERT PSYCHOLOGICAL insult, try what you claim to suggest in the prior paragraph. Those groups are empowered by the very LIKE-minded thinkers who can't fathom that they themselves ARE the problem. Neglectful types of abuses are MORE prevalent, devious, and hard to ever see. It makes those who overtly act out only represent a less intellectually and clumsy 'criminal' who are easily caught. The worst ARE those of the same with 'credulity' of defense of the 'victims'. 

Calling someone out as though YOU KNOW better is why Trump got elected: a response by the behavior of HYPOCRITES claiming to be 'loving' people are culpable of the same but are able to hold up babies in front of them as armor while they jump into the front lines of war.

[Scott Mayers]

12 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If you want to change a law or policy, run for Parliament. If you cannot convince enough people you are right, then maybe you should entertain the possibility you are wrong. 

Just because I believe the monarch is chosen by God, doesn't mean it is so. Governments survive by doing what most people want. That is democracy.

I'm not permitted. You require being first a default supporter in your 'queen', a belief in those SPECIFIC inheritors of past peoples as uniquely protected in 'our' constitution, and have the money as well as some religiously devoted backing cult behind you. Our system only favors the 'group' stereotypes that are passed through the auspices of the select cults. At minimal, I am a 'floater' here presumed to be from some cult based on biology (how does one 'own' ancestral behavior? And why is it okay to take the selective stereotypes over the derogatory ones when BOTH come from the same kind of error in thinking? If it is not okay to inherit your father's evils, why is it okay to assert the inherent benefits. It say, keep the good but distribute the faults on those without association. I'm tired of assholes scapegoating me as thought THEY are the ones 'sacrificing'. As sacrifice has to literally be one's own, not some class member you forcefully assert we are all belonging to.

[Scott Mayers]

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I understand what you are saying, and agree also with your earlier statement that the line can be hard to define.  The problem I see with organizations like Combat18 or ISIS being free to post on social media is that the "public" face of the page is pretty sanitized.  It draws people in, and as time goes they become either disgusted - as you say - or they become believers and go ever deeper behind the scenes, where the calls to action are.  This is how recruitment works, and social media is a great tool for extremists.  They certainly aren't going to draw people in by saying, right-up-front, 'we are looking for soldiers to fight and kill.'

Wait. The 'evangelical' Christian of any denomination believes in spreading their word. Most religions con money to send to remote places with a sales tactic of selling of the suffering when the intents are more devious indirectly. WE permit legal lying in almost all of our business oriented behavior that exploit the differences between what one 'knows' over another. Those groups, if they sincerely believe they have a beef, often DO extremes because that is all they have when the 'legit' powers DON'T need to for the fact that they HAVE the power. They just manipulate ways to try to EVOKE those poor sufferers INTO extremism. This censoring precisely does this. 

[Dougie93]

No point in trying to get involved while the "Progressives" are ascendant, better to simply lie in wait and feed them rope to hangs themselves with.

When the pendulum swings, the "Progressives" will become the hunted, then the Counter Terrorism Act will be invoked promiscuously against them.