The idea that the internet was at some previous point a free-for-all has never been true. Even before the web was a thing SysAdmins would regularly block NNTP newgroups from being available on their servers.
It doesn't surprise me that a site that taunts people about reposting the Christchurch shooter's livestream should have trouble getting service. The fact I'm writing this from a throwaway shows the reality of the harrassment some people I know have suffered from this group.
Censorship is bad. But battles should be fought for people who need protection against it, not for people who try to exploit tolerant societies' carve-outs for free speech.
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
Remember, it's about the freedom to listen, not the freedom to speak. The censors in this case are wanting to stop anyone being able to read/see certain things.
If I wanted to see Islamist/white supremacist/Russian state/anti-trans propaganda in 2006 this was possible. It is now much much harder.
The Christchurch shooting is actually a good example about the type of thing that should be available on the internet but isn't. It shows people the brutal reality and actually gives a few clues as to how to most effectively fight a mass shooter.
There's a cogent argument which would claim that proliferation of the Christchurch shooter's footage would serve as a specific causal factor for future mass shootings, especially because part of the motivation of that shooting was exactly the proliferation of that manifesto. In that sense it's almost a memetic threat because any proliferation of the video locks in the reward structure for future copycats. In terms of discourse about what should/shouldn't be generally exposed to people with only a passing interest (external to any discussion about how that moral imperative aught to be enforced), the Christchurch footage would be pretty close to the top of my blacklist.
Moreover - I'm pretty sure anyone with a modicum of net-literacy could find that video with relative ease if they really wanted to. It's clearly not a binary of proliferation and censorship, but a complex gradient where different mediums of curation have different thresholds for that kind of exposure.
Saying we need to censor because free speech benefits mass shooters is wrong for the same reason that saying we need to backdoor encryption because privacy benefits terrorists and pedophiles is.
The discriminant between the two positions is that 'free speech' (as constructed here, I probably disagree with the conclusion) need not be a binary. Where backdooring encryption is clearly a binary policy that once triggered can't be revoked, this is only because it pertains to hidden information. Mitigating the proliferation of specific classes of content can be done with specific intent because you know what types of content you're mitigating - fundamentally this is no different than a website (like this one) deciding not to contend with certain types of content (as the rules imply). This means that you break out of the 'slippery slope' argument pretty easily and can get access to 'not negotiating with domestic terrorists' without the negative externalities of suppressing open discourse.
This is a crap reframing, such that I honestly have a hard time taking your post in good faith. The censors aren't wanting to stop anyone being able to read/see certain things. The fiction and history isles in most any setting are still highly available.
No, they want to make sure they are not fostering the market for the things you mention. Such that, yes, they are, in effect, limiting the veracity and effectiveness with which you can say and spread these things. That it makes it a little harder for you to see them, is a side show, at best. It is also harder for you to see illicit pictures of people, but we don't see that as an attack on freedom.
The site in question has regularly been used as a place to coordinate doxxing and serious harassment. AFAIK no measures have been taken by the owners to remedy this, and thus they've forfeited their rights to run a website.
Doxxing and serious harassment (probably depending on how "serious" it is, IANAL) are crimes though? Why isn't there a court order to shut down the site? Why did the site die at the hands of Internet vigilantes instead of being properly executed after a trial? Is law enforcement inept enough that it needs help from random activists, coordinating a Twitter/Facebook/WhatHaveYou campaign to convince some influential people to act? Why the same influential people were not told to act by a court? There's something wrong here...
> The site in question has regularly been used as a place to coordinate doxxing and serious harassment.
I have no way of verifying this and I suspect neither do you.
What I have seen is that the owners have explicit rules laid down that state that coordinating harassment is not allowed, which seems very much like a measure taken.
Posting publicly, self-posted in many cases, information hardly counts as doxxing.
and as for harassment, let alone "serious harassment", 100% utterly false.. Even talking about interacting with people talked about is and has always been banned! Users downvote attempts as well. It's a gossip and documentation site, not a place for calls to action. "Look but never touch"
> ...and thus they've forfeited their rights to run a website.
You cannot forfeit a right. The right either exists or it doesn't exist. Anything that can be forfeited is a privilege. Free speech is a right, but using other people's hardware to do so (via hosting/CDN services) is a privilege.
Of course you can forfeit a right. If I commit a felony in the US as a US citizen I forfeit my right to vote. If I sell a copyright I've forfeited the right to monopolize that work.
Nevertheless, you have the right to free speech, just not a platform. The government hasn't made it illegal for Kiwifarms to have a website, it's just that nobody wants to be a part of hosting or distributing it. That's literally the right of free association at work.
> If I commit a felony in the US as a US citizen I forfeit my right to vote.
Many hold the opinion, as do I, that a felon serving their time and then being left unable to vote is a violation of their civil rights.
> If I sell a copyright I've forfeited the right to monopolize that work.
You haven't forfeighted anything. You've sold a commodity. That's not the same thing.
> Nevertheless, you have the right to free speech, just not a platform. The government hasn't made it illegal for Kiwifarms to have a website, it's just that nobody wants to be a part of hosting or distributing it. That's literally the right of free association at work.
A platform is a privilege (e.g. a VPS), but they do have a right to common carrier infrastructure. The author talks about their ISP dropping them, which ISPs in the U.S. are considered common carriers (not sure about Paris). A common carrier cannot discriminate on it's clientele short of direct government action regarding criminal or national security issues. Neither of those is the case with KiwiFarms. Distasteful? Sure, but not criminal.
> In most (all?) societies that I am aware of you can forfeit your right to personal autonomy and/or life by committing a crime.
Criminals still have rights, some specifically regarding the criminal justice system. Society has agreed after a conviction to not allow criminals to exercise some of their rights to protect the rights of their victims. For example, in order to protect others' right to life we have decided to infringe a murderer's right to liberty.
> Is your argument that we should not punish crimes with imprisonment or is it that people do not have a right to personal autonomy?
No, my argument is that even when imprisoned criminals' rights don't go anywhere. Society has decided it's better to violate criminals' rights to prevent the infringement of innocents' rights.
Did they break the law? If not, then they didn't forfeit any rights, since you don't forfeit rights by exercising them. If so, then they should have been shut down by the legal system, not via extrajudicial punishment.
> It doesn't surprise me that a site that taunts people about reposting the Christchurch shooter's livestream should have trouble getting service. The fact I'm writing this from a throwaway shows the reality of the harrassment some people I know have suffered from this group.
This is extremely disingenuous. The request to take the video down came attached with a request to give them all the IPs of people from NZ, when the people in NZ were being liable for jailing by simply having the video in their possesion[0], i quote:
>While he said that those who spread the video in New Zealand risked arrest and imprisonment, he warned all New Zealanders that even innocent possession of the video was a crime.
“If you have a record of it, you must delete it,” he said. “If you see it, you should report it. Possessing or distributing it is illegal and only supports a criminal agenda.”
The response to new zealand was great and deserved, and i'll cheer for it the same way i'd cheer for someone denying a request from saudi arabia or china or whatever other more authoritarian government trying to take shit down across borders
The article is a case of the worst person you know making an excellent point.
> Despite all that, the Internet has one more weak point: Denial of Service Attacks. These attacks use compromised computers to send massive amounts of junk data to a single point, blotting out legitimate traffic and potentially overwhelming target devices.
Note Popper's definition of the intolerant in this context: those who do not engage in rational argument, and those who forbid their followers to listen to rational argument. Neither applies here.
I think Kiwi Farms' users harassed several people in retaliation for their speech until they killed themselves, rather than engaging in rational argument with them, defending their rights to speak their unpopular opinions, or even just leaving them alone. We're not talking about acrimonious ideological debate; we're talking about stalking and SWATting.
No, they didn't. This has been debunked numerous times. The evidence for that is on KF itself. The people who perpetuate this narrative are people actually engaged in harassment against others whose activities are documented on KF using their own words which, oddly enough, they really don't like... leading them to attempt mass deplatforming. Anyone with more than a passing familiarity with this situation knows the score, and no one is fooled.
> Clara Sorrenti, a transgender activist and Twitch streamer under the name "Keffals", was doxxed on Kiwi Farms in a thread dedicated to discussing her. Users on the site posted personal information about her (e.g. addresses, phone numbers) as well as that of her friends and family. Users also leaked sexually explicit photos of her and made death threats.[34][35] She was later swatted, arrested, and detained for over ten hours in August 2022 when someone stole her identity and sent fake emails to local politicians threatening mass violence. She was later cleared of any wrongdoing, and police acknowledged the incident as a swatting attempt. Users also posted the address of an unrelated man who lives in the same city and shares her last name, and police were also sent to his residence. After the swatting incident, Sorrenti said she moved out of her home and into a hotel for her safety.[36][37] After she posted a photograph of her cat on the hotel bed, Kiwi Farms users identified the hotel from the bedsheets in the photograph, and sent multiple pizza orders to the hotel under her deadname. "Obviously, the pizza itself isn't the problem. It's the threat they send by telling me they know where I live and are willing to act on it in the real world," she said in a video after the incident.[36][37][38] Sorrenti later fled the country after her location was identified again, reportedly by someone who hacked her Uber account.[39] The incidents are being investigated as criminal harassment, and Sorrenti stated she intended to pursue legal action.[37][40][41]
I don't want to stand on any side of the argument since I'm not very informed about KiwiFarm incident, but Wikipedia in general is not really a reliable source of truth.
Skimming the references, almost all of them seem to point to news pages created after the CloudFlare ban, none of which seems to provide sources for their claims themselves.
Wikipedia does get things wrong sometimes, but I'm not sure where to find more reliable information. Wikipedia does have a pretty good history of handling controversial topics like the Armenian genocide, the killing of Michael Brown, and lampshades made of Holocaust victims' skin.
I agree that Wikipedia eventually converges to something close to truth. However, that takes time. Since the event in question is fairly recent, I'd still take everything written about it on Wikipedia with a grain of salt.
The hotel where she was doxed by the sheets nothing was delivered, the second hotel was where the uber hack happenned and things were ordered thru ubereats, this was all done by doxbin[0], both the dox and the hack.I'm pretty sure kf was actually down during that whole thing due to a ddos attack but I may be misremembering.
Wikipedia doesnt post the truth(it's impossible, really), they post things backed up by secondary sources, when the secondary sources are knowingly lying[1] at keffals request to not mention doxbin it's pretty hard to trust them.
Chloe Sagal was left alone for 8 months (not a single post in her thread) until she killed herself. If you are interested I recommend reading https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2018/06/woman_who_set_se... It starts with her friends blaming Kiwi Farms but then goes deeper in to the issues.
EDIT: The "sexually explicit photos" are a video she did for a porn website. I'm not sure how this qualifies as "leaked" or "revenge porn".
And yet there is no evidence an American died overseas in Japan during the time he supposedly killed himself. None. Just one guy's assertion and everyone else believing him.
...you mean the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? The one which has been edited to support a viewpoint whose sole source is Keffals herself? That one?
I'm not impressed.
There is no evidence that Keffals was ever contacted by anybody other than her own assertion. Meanwhile, however, there is plenty of evidence that Keffals was part of a group that tried to get troubled teens access to hormones without the knowledge of their parents or physicians. That's all documented at KF. [1]
> Sorrenti later fled the country after her location was identified again
...conveniently omitting the fact that she was raided by the RCMP who seized evidence. It was after that raid she fled the country.
Honestly, you should never cite Wikipedia for anything.
And not one bit of even evidence that the site had anything to do with that.. Keffals wasn't even doxxed on the site, it was on another site. Plus the person in question just got done fighting and de-platforming another internet personality with a huge following and then gloating about taking away their livelihood. They didn't leak photos of Keffals, they found self posted porn from the past.
I saw it with my own eyes as a user of the site. Yes, KF was used to document awful things by awful people, but it was also used to encourage harassment of people who were just existing (well, existing while trans mostly). A few of those people took their own lives and blamed the harassment that KF enabled.
> Yes, KF was used to document awful things by awful people, but it was also used to encourage harassment of people who were just existing (well, existing while trans mostly)
No they didn't. Null and the mods are very, very emphatic that harassment is unacceptable (hence the phrase he loves to hate, "Don't touch the poop"). Further, nobody was ever nominated as a lolcow simply for being trans. There's nothing particularly funny about that. OTOH, people falsely accusing streamers of rape and trying to get hormones to minors all while holding yourself out as some kind of moral person? Yeah, that's pretty funny.
> A few of those people took their own lives and blamed the harassment that KF enabled.
There are exactly three people alleged to have offed themselves, and not one of them ever actually did it because of KF. That too is documented at KF since it's a lie that comes up so often. Since you're familiar with this, though, I'm sure you can name them. I'll wait.
"Stinkditch" is the category for lolcows who happen to be trans. There's also the Beauty Parlor for the beauty-adjacent, or the Internationale Clique for foreign lolcows. In no case is anyone in there simply for being trans, beautiful, or a foreigner. They are, however, there for engaging in horrendously unethical behavior which is documented using their own words.
Oh, and look at that... KF is back on the clearnet... so you can verify all this yourself.
Help me out - your favorite hate site is getting trash talked and doxxed. Please fill out this questionnaire.
Are you:
Upset that people can spread rumors you think are false?
Upset that there are real world consequences to the stuff that's being said about you, independent of the truth of it?
Angry that you are labeled as nazi sympathizer because you hang out on a site that has a lot of nazis?
Embarassed that you subscribe to a belief summarized as "why are you upset? free speech!", and now you find yourself not championing the free speech of those attacking you?
Ah, very good sir. While we're filling out questionnaires, perhaps you could indulge us in answering a few questions yourself:
1. Why are you defending someone who tries to get children access to hormones without the knowledge of their parents or doctors?
2. Can you name one person who demonstrably offed themselves because of what goes on at KF? Please provide evidence.
3. Is it 'hate' to document peoples' horrible activities using their own words?
4. Would you be this snarky if someone was saying these sorts of things about, say, HN?
5. Are you upset that there are people in this world who don't blithely accept the word of Wikipedia and journalists but rather engage in investigative journalism themselves?
I see, afraid or unable to answer.... redirecting in seeming bad faith.
I'll go ahead and mark you down in the "cowardly kiwifool" column - that seems to be most of you. Strange.
Anyway, if you want to engage my questions I'll consider engaging in yours. (I use the same policy with you lot that I use with drug dealers, car salespeople and other unsavory hucksters - show me the goods then I'll give you what you're asking for if it's a reasonable exchange.)
> Help me out - your favorite hate site is getting trash talked and doxxed. Please fill out this questionnaire.
Is TMZ a hate site? Is anything a hate site just because people assert it without proof? Do you believe everything you are told by journalists?
> Upset that people can spread rumors you think are false?
Is it really spreading rumors when they're using your own posts?
> Upset that there are real world consequences to the stuff that's being said about you, independent of the truth of it?
So are you suggesting that nobody should ever say anything at all because someone might take it the wrong way? That sure sounds like giving in the to the Heckler's Veto. Perhaps you mean that there should be some forum for adjudicating disputes of fact about a person's reputation? In that case there is in fact just such a forum: It's called a court of law. If KF posters have said anything defamatory then feel free to try to sue them. Go ahead.
> Angry that you are labeled as nazi sympathizer because you hang out on a site that has a lot of nazis?
OBJECTION! Asserts facts not in evidence. Just because you assert a place has X in it does not mean that it has X in it. I mean, if we're going by that standard, I can point out that anyone who hangs out on Discord must be a furry and a pedophile because of... oh wait.
> Embarassed that you subscribe to a belief summarized as "why are you upset? free speech!", and now you find yourself not championing the free speech of those attacking you?
It is not "free speech" to engage in tortious interference. Do you understand the difference?
This is why I demand to see the goods up front. If you don't want to answer my questions, that's cool, but there's no reason to answer yours then.
I'm sure you are aware of this, but I never said anything about legality, or even talked about it. Looks like you're going with the classic scumbag fallback of "its not illegal" before I even suggested you did anything wrong. Kinda sad that your default position isn't that you're in the right, just that you aren't breaking the law.
I'll leave you to your day with this: it might be worth your time to consider activities that benefit the world rather than just plodding from one technically legal trollfarm to the next - most people find the rewards of being useful quite nice. Cheers and good luck!
> the classic scumbag fallback of "its not illegal"
What's so "scumbag" in trying to rely on the law and law enforcement for getting rid of bad and harmful things? I'm a normal citizen, I'm perfectly happy to leave the judgement to the courts. Am I a scumbag because of this?
...because you want to steer the conversation to predetermined conclusions and are incensed that other people won't play along?
The era of the proletariat blindly believing whatever the petit bourgeoisie tell them is dead and gone, and attempts to silence the proletariat when petit bourgeoisie are caught doing unethical things doubly so. Information wants to be free.
> ...because you want to steer the conversation to predetermined conclusions and are incensed that other people won't play along?
Lol no silly. Because I want to have answers to my questions and an actual conversation, not sit around and play mental patty cake with someone incapable of participating in actual conversion. When your only response is to ask a bunch of nonsense questions that aren't in any way related to what I'm asking or saying, you aren't conversing, it's just some childish game of avoidance.
Dismissing my answers does not make them any less answers. Also, I'm not the one refusing to have an actual conversation. That's you. You said you wouldn't answer my questions until I answered yours... so I did, and now here we are with you continuing to avoid those very uncomfortable questions.
Maybe you should just admit that you just hate KF and don't care if they're silenced or not. That at least would be honest.
"Has a lot of nazis"?? Do you have proof of this? (I mean I don't doubt that there is someone who does since the site has a pretty big user base and doesn't censor speech, let alone speakers for opinions but...)
How so? The harassment campaigns launched from Kiwifarms seem like the opposite of rational argument. Do you imagine that going into Kiwifarms and engaging the users in rational debate about the basic humanity and dignity of their targets would be a fruitful endeavor?
The harrassment campaigns that have no* paper trail back to kiwifarms, the forum that is public and anyone can archive at any time?
Ever since i've started to pay attention to kiwifarms from cloudflare dropping them i've been trying to get the evidence of any harassment coming from there and not being extremely looked down upon/banned and have come out almost empty handed. The scraps i've got are from chris chan in like 2013/2014?
This is the kind of dangerous "everyone knows that it is clear they do X thing hence there is no need for evidence".
Now to be fair I don't doubt harassment comes from individual kiwifarms users, maybe even organizing with other people somewhere else, but taking down the website will not change that, and guilt by association is a dangerous thing.
*none that I could find in the previous threads/most articles about it that is. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
The distance between kiwifarms threads and direct harassment is a thin veneer more meant to shield the site from criticism than anything meaningful. The relationship between the site and the people it stalks is slightly more complicated than appears on the surface. In practice the threads serve largely as a rallying place and public archives of exploits. The actual "touching the poo" occurs in discord servers populated by the very same people posting on the site who initially met in the threads. They will privately coordinate actions on discord, then publicly post them on the site, it is one extra step of laundering that serves only as a layer of plausible deniability.
The threads are the central nexus for the harassment, the site rules simply stipulate that the dirtiest work must happen in slightly more private venues. Please understand however, that the threads themselves are essential to this process, they are where the harassment starts and all actions on discord are done specifically to then be posted on the site.
This is of course kept as quiet as possible, but an example where the curtain was drawn back would be the behavior of power user SpookyBones. I wont name the person being targeted in particular, but by reading their subforum it is clear to see that kiwifarms users had private discords where they would directly contact the person in question and their friends, and then post the findings back on threads.
The distance between kiwifarms itself and direct harassment is mere obfuscation, not a substantive separation. The very people doing the harassment meet on kiwifarms, and then commit their acts purposefully to post on the site. The slight detour offsite for the actual action hardly matters in practice.
In the quote we were discussing, Popper is not concerned with any particular resolution of the argument, but only with whether words are being answered with more words or with fists.
As far as I've been able to tell, Moon allows anyone to express any viewpoint on his forum.
> Censorship is bad. But battles should be fought for people who need protection against it, not for people who try to exploit tolerant societies' carve-outs for free speech.
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
― H.L. Mencken
Granting someone the power to decide who does and doesn't get to speak never ends well. It's that "power corrupts" thing.
.
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
Answering fists with words doesn't always work (it can sometimes if the people using fists are subject to public opinion that you can influence, but that's fairly limited circumstances).
But pretending that words are fists in order to manufacture an excuse to respond with fists is something else, and is a misreading of that footnote you referenced to ignore the thing it's a footnote to.
It should be noted that the kiwifarms dude has spent 15 years trying and trying to be such a shitfuck that the rest of society stops giving him the benefit of the doubt, and has only recently succeeded. It may be possible to get kicked off the internet accidentally by saying the wrong things to power, but in this case he got kicked off by intentionally and personally pissing off every person and organization connecting him and the web.
> intentionally and personally pissing off every person and organization connecting him and the web.
I thought the whole "#dropkiwifarms" thing was more shaped like an organized pressure campaign, rather than every new provider he signs on with organically deciding within days that his interactions with them are deliberately obnoxious.
It is terrifying how poorly educated people are today in terms of critical thinking or even basic logical reasoning. "only good speech that enough people agree with needs to be protected by freedom of speech"
Either "censorship is (in general) bad", or "only a select few should be able to fight against it". That's one thing.
Another: there's law that already prohibits publishing some of the content deemed harmful. Like that law or not, it's there. The OP stresses that his web sites do not break the law. I'm not a lawyer nor KF user, so I wouldn't know, but what's so wrong with letting the courts decide? I'm sure that law enforcement and judiciary are capable enough to handle complaints about the content. They sure do when the content is copyrighted...
The paradox you're mentioning hinges on the assumption that KiwiFarms & similar are actually intolerant, or rather, their continued existence is a threat to the tolerant society/tolerance in the society. Is that really true? I don't know, but I don't think so. How can a tiny community of maybe a few thousands (or tens of thousands?) ever be any kind of threat to the tolerance of a society of hundreds of millions of people? They can be a threat to individuals, but then we're back to previous point: such threats are best dealt with by the courts and police.
One tweet from former US President - just one, maybe even any one, out of hundreds of thousands - would be a much bigger threat to tolerant society than all the KiwiFarms of the Internet taken together. That person had literally tens of millions of followers, and what he published incited riots not seen in a long time. Did KF ever cause anything close to that scale? If not, how exactly are they a threat to "tolerant society"?
Again: not a user, never seen KF before the recent KF vs. Keffars (IIRC), didn't read or see anything else on the site. I'm just reacting to you essentially saying that people should be unable to host and publish things you, personally, find offending and harmful. I don't like that content either, but I exercise my right to not look at it. If it's really harmful enough to the society to warrant "deplatforming" (or whatever you want to call it) then it's OK to bring their case to the court. The judge or jury will decide, and if they find the content actually harmful and against the law, they will issue a warrant and make the content disappear.
That "paradox" Is flawed a "balanced" society will not be in a position where bad ideas stand unchallenged and remain reputable after being challenged. The tools of censorship are more dangerous existing (meaning they'll eventually be corrupted), than allowing a bad idea to exist and challenged again by society.
Basically to believe the Paradox of Intolerance, you need to be of the belief that society has fallen so much that it cannot be trusted to keep itself free, or that the censors you pick will always be uncorrupted for their entire existence.
"That concept doesn't mean what you think it does, in more ways than one!
First off, that was not a defense of censorship. It was meant as a last ditch effort for an extreme, dire situation. (centering especially on groups who, you guessed it, advocate for overt censorship and oppression) The person who made it popular/created it made it clear that it was not an argument against free speech and tolerance, even for so-called "reactionaries" or normal political extremists.
Secondly, it is a paradox, not a logical point freeing intolerant actions from the logical, moral or ethical concept of intolerance! Being intolerant of the intolerant makes one intolerant. That's what makes it a paradox! Modern wannabe intellectuals and ideologues have no idea what they are talking about when they invoke it today and come the CLOSEST to actually meeting the criteria for its invocation!"
For people who aren't aware, the author of this piece is the founder of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms
The idea that the internet was at some previous point a free-for-all has never been true. Even before the web was a thing SysAdmins would regularly block NNTP newgroups from being available on their servers.
It doesn't surprise me that a site that taunts people about reposting the Christchurch shooter's livestream should have trouble getting service. The fact I'm writing this from a throwaway shows the reality of the harrassment some people I know have suffered from this group.
Censorship is bad. But battles should be fought for people who need protection against it, not for people who try to exploit tolerant societies' carve-outs for free speech.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance is important:
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.