No, it wouldn't. Think it through. The media publishes news about censored content all the time. We don't need to know the full details of his hate speech to be informed that he committed that crime.

I think it’s fine if you want to remain ignorant of what he says. But I would rather know, personally, mostly so I can combat his ideas.

Do you think that you know better than the Judge that presided over the court case of Anjem Choudary? — S

So the judge suggested that prohibiting some speech would help us control terrorism? Was that in his written decision?

I think it’s fine if you want to remain ignorant of what he says. But I would rather know, personally, mostly so I can combat his ideas. — NOS4A2

So you'd rather have his speech published to a wide audience, which is exactly what he wants. And if, out of that audience, a number of people are converted to his ideology, and maybe even go on to commit serious crimes in the name of that ideology, then that's alright with you.

So the judge suggested that prohibiting some speech would help us control terrorism? Was that in his written decision? — Terrapin Station

Anyone with half a brain can work out the implications of what he was saying.

So I had asked for evidence that controlling hate speech controls terrorism.

And then I said, which still stands, that I would accept anything academic that even suggests it, as long as it's explicitly and specifically suggesting that hate speech legislation would have something to do with controlling terrorism.

But the best we can do, apparently, is something that a judge said, and apparently he didn't explicitly say that controlling hate speech controls terrorism; we need to read that into what he said. And then we still didn't address where the judge said this--I'm guessing in his written decision on the case, but you didn't answer that. Is that right, we're reading this into his written decision on the case? Do we have a link to his written decision? I quickly searched for it but I was just finding articles about the case.

I find your tactic of trying to gain the upper hand in this debate by making unreasonable requests of very specific and explicit statements of your choosing, and then treating the lack of compliance as some sort of defeat, frankly ridiculous. You're just grasping at straws to avoid conceding.

So you're not claiming that any academic source suggests that hate speech legislation would have something to do with controlling terrorism?

So you're not claiming that any academic source suggests that hate speech legislation would have something to do with controlling terrorism? — Terrapin Station

I'm claiming that anyone with half a brain can work out the implications of what the judge was saying, and that your typical response of requesting an explicit statement which you know isn't there in the quote is just a lame workaround to avoid conceding.

So you'd rather have his speech published to a wide audience, which is exactly what he wants. And if, out of that audience, a number of people are converted to his ideology, and maybe even go on to commit serious crimes in the name of that ideology, then that's alright with you.

It just doesn’t follow that me defending his free speech means I’d rather his speech published to a wide audience.

I'm claiming that anyone with half a brain can work out the implications of what the Judge was saying, — S

That's fine.

Is there any academic source that suggests that hate speech legislation would have something to do with controlling terrorism?

It just doesn’t follow that me defending his free speech means I’d rather his speech published to a wide audience. — NOS4A2

Try not to lose track. It shouldn't be that difficult to follow the logic. We were talking about the media publishing a censored hate speech, as opposed to the full details of it. The media has a wide audience. You are totally against censorship, and you said that you would rather know, than to remain ignorant, as you would do under censorship. That implies that you'd be okay with a fully uncensored publication by the media, which would reach a wide audience, which is exactly what the perpetrators of hate speech desire. And if you're okay with that, then in order to be consistent, you should accept the potential consequences of that stance.

You can't have it both ways.

Is there any academic source that suggests that hate speech legislation would have something to do with controlling terrorism? — Terrapin Station

Did you not read the remarks delivered by the judge in Choudary’s sentencing? Did you not read about the cases linked to Choudary's hate speech? The judge is an authority when it comes to hate speech and crime.

Or you did, but you're just going to keep asking for something else. Fine, be unreasonable. There's obviously no convincing you, and you're just going to keep making the same stupid requests.

Did you not read the remarks delivered by the judge in Choudary’s sentencing? — S

First, I never heard of this case until it was just brought up earlier in this thread.

I asked you twice now if we were talking about his written decision in the case. You never answered.

And then I asked if you had a link to the decision (or whatever you would have been referring to if not his decision). i said I was only finding articles about it. You never responded to that.

So obviously I never read whatever you were referring to.

You did say that the judge didn't explicitly claim that hate speech legislation has a connection to controlling terrorism. And the judge isn't an academic source for evidence of a connection, at any rate. But sure, I'd read whatever you're referring to if you could point me to it.

I asked you twice now if we were talking about his written decision in the case. You never answered. — Terrapin Station

I deliberately ignored that because it should be blindingly obvious what I was referring to. How many times have I referred you to the remarks delivered by the judge in Choudary's sentencing, as quoted in the Guardian article?

And then I asked if you had a link to the decision (or whatever you would have been referring to if not his decision). i said I was only finding articles about it. You never responded to that. — Terrapin Station

If you mean what the outcome was, as in his sentence, that was all there for you to easily access through the link in the original post. I can't work out whether you're being really lazy or you're just staggeringly incompetent.

You did say that the judge didn't explicitly claim that hate speech legislation has a connection to controlling terrorism. — Terrapin Station

And I also said that your emphasis on that was a frankly ridiculous debate tactic.

I deliberately ignored that because it should be blindingly obvious — S

. . . There's no way you're such a royal asshole in person.

Anyway, so we're talking about a newspaper article? What was the link to it again?

Anyway, so we're talking about a newspaper article? What was the link to it again? — Terrapin Station

Your request for me to effectively spoon feed you actually offends me.

Your request for me to effectively spoon feed you actually offends me. — S

Try not to lose track. It shouldn't be that difficult to follow the logic. We were talking about the media publishing a censored hate speech, as opposed to the full details of it. The media has a wide audience. You are totally against censorship, and you said that you would rather know, than to remain ignorant, as you would do under censorship. That implies that you'd be okay with a fully uncensored publication by the media, which would reach a wide audience, which is exactly what the perpetrators of hate speech desire. And if you're okay with that, then in order to be consistent, you should accept the potential consequences of that stance.

What a convoluted word salad. I wouldn’t mind if the media showed us hate speech, if that’s what you’re getting at.

It comes across to me like he's expecting you to have an intuitive reaction against the idea of some people being exposed to some speech.

What a convoluted word salad. — NOS4A2

Hardly. And I only felt it necessary to clarify in greater detail because you were evidently so confused over my initial more brief and straightforward wording.

I wouldn’t mind if the media showed us hate speech, if that’s what you’re getting at. — NOS4A2

Clearly I was getting at more than just that. So I take it that you accept the rest of what I said also? Or did you just decide to ignore the related points I put to you, as though I never made them? Selective reading, is it?

Do you want to try again, since you've failed to properly address my point twice now? Perhaps it will be a case of third time lucky, though I don't have high expectations of you.

Do you want to try again, since you've failed to properly address my point twice now? Perhaps it will be a case of third time lucky, though I don't have high expectations of you.

I don’t think hate speech should be censored. If the news shows a swastika or racial vandalism, for example, I don’t think a bunch of neo-Nazis are going to rise from the ground and start attacking people.

I don’t think hate speech should be censored. If the news shows a swastika or racial vandalism, for example, I don’t think a bunch of neo-Nazis are going to rise from the ground and start attacking people. — NOS4A2

You're deliberately picking examples which are more likely to skew the outcome in your favour, just like Terrapin Station has done a couple of times now.

Stop wasting time attacking a straw man. This is what I actually put to you:

So you'd rather have his speech published to a wide audience, which is exactly what he wants. And if, out of that audience, a number of people are converted to his ideology, and maybe even go on to commit serious crimes in the name of that ideology, then that's alright with you. — S

And is the supporting evidence:

As mentioned earlier, the case of Anjem Choudary.

It says that he was convicted of terrorism offences, because they were obviously going to nail him for a more severe crime if they could, but it's hate speech.

It’s well worth reading the remarks delivered by the judge in Choudary’s sentencing. Despite only finally falling foul of the law after being found to have pledged support to Isis, Holyrode points out that Choudary used his platform to spread his messages of division and violence long before he was arrested. Choudary is said to have “taken every opportunity to address audiences by various means”. He said to Choudary: “You wanted to address a large audience because you know that you were held in high regard by your followers, and that they could therefore be expected to be influenced by what you said.”

“Those who already held views in favour of Isis would no doubt have been encouraged and strengthened in those views by what you said, and that in itself makes your offending serious; but you were also aiming at a wider audience,” the judgment continues.

Choudary’s views, and more importantly his ability to communicate and share them, led to his extremism being propagated. What’s more, we know they contributed to encouraging others to engage in acts of indiscriminate, abhorrent violence. He was linked to one of the men who killed the soldier Lee Rigby, and the London Bridge attacker, Khuram Butt. His words are said to have influenced at least 100 British jihadists.
— The Guardian

From here.

And from the same article linked above, with regard to Darren Osbourne, perpetrator of the Finsbury Park mosque terrorist attack:

Police say it took just three or four weeks for Osborne’s extremism to emerge – evidence from devices he used show that he accessed posts by Tommy Robinson, Britain First and others.
— The Guardian

And oh, look:

Tommy Robinson banned from Facebook and Instagram over hate speech

Jayda Fransen: Ex-Britain First deputy leader convicted over hate speech — S

The links didn't cross over in the quote, but you can find them in the original post by clicking the link contained in my username just under the quote above.

Stop wasting time attacking a straw man.

Straw man? I said I didn’t want hate speech censored, not that I’d “rather have his speech published to a wide audience”. I don’t know how you leaped from what I said to your interpretation.

Straw man? — NOS4A2

Yes. You attacked a much simpler and weaker stance which you came up with yourself:

If the news shows a swastika or racial vandalism, for example, I don’t think a bunch of neo-Nazis are going to rise from the ground and start attacking people. — NOS4A2

I said I didn’t want hate speech censored, not that I’d “rather have his speech published to a wide audience”. I don’t know how you leaped from what I said to your interpretation. — NOS4A2

What you're quoting out of context is a logical consequence of what you said, not what you said. Which part of the logic I set out for you are you seemingly incapable of following? There was no leap. You replied to my explanation by dismissing it with the mischaracterisation that it's a word salad, which suggests that you possibly have brain damage, as it was perfectly understandable.

In what strange world does not censoring someone entail publishing their speech to a wider audience?

Do you know the primary reason why ISIS hates us and wants to fight us? They answer the question in one of their propaganda pieces.

I'm guessing that's what you were referring to re the judges remarks? The judge said that Choudary's comments "encouraged" and "influenced." Are we to take the judge to be using "influence" in the sense of "cause" (but not "force," whatever "cause but not force" is supposed to be)?

In what strange world does not censoring someone entail publishing their speech to a wider audience? — NOS4A2

Jesus Christ. I'm talking about a world that must seem very strange to you indeed. I'm talking about the strange world of combining logic with your own comments in this discussion. Let me try one last time to break it down as clearly and simply as possible, so that even a simpleton could understand it.

You are totally against censorship, yes? Yes.

The media publish things, yes? Yes.

The media, or at least notable media outlets, have a wide audience, yes? Yes.

So, if a notable media outlet (if it hasn't already slipped your mind, you'll recall that they have a wide audience) decided to publish a hate speech in full, then you would have no objection to that (given that you're totally against censorship), yes? Otherwise you would be contradicting yourself, yes?

Are you following?

Maybe you wouldn't be so confused if you hadn't either forgotten or wilfully disregarded the context of my comment. When I said that you'd rather have his speech published to a wide audience, that was as opposed to censoring it, and it was about a publication through the media (hence a wide audience).

It really isn't that complicated.

I'm guessing that's what you were referring to re the judges remarks? The judge said that Choudary's comments "encouraged" and "influenced." Are we to take the judge to be using "influence" in the sense of "cause" (but not "force," whatever "cause but not force" is supposed to be)? — Terrapin Station

Yes.

I’ve stated explicitly that I don’t believe it should be censored. Take that to whatever logical conclusion you wish and imagine I’m arguing for it, but I cannot make it any more explicit.

If the news shows a swastika or racial vandalism, for example, I don’t think a bunch of neo-Nazis are going to rise from the ground and start attacking people. — NOS4A2

Not from the showing of a single swastika, no. But regular, supportive, coverage of (say) racist stuff does cause a surge in support for organisations like the KKK, who are more prominent today since Trump came to power, and gave them his support.