Argument: A ban would stop Holocaust deniers from engaging in effective real world actions

The greatest fear with hate groups is not just their hateful rhetoric online, but also their ability to take harmful action in the real world. When Holocaust deniers are able to set up standard websites, they have the ability to mobilize action on the ground. This means coordinating rallies, as well as acts of hooliganism and violence. One need only look at the sort of organization the Golden Dawn, a neo-fascist Greek party, has been able to develop in part through active use of social media and websites. [1] By capitalizing on the tools of the 21st century these thugs have succeeded in bringing sympathizers to their cause, often geographically diffuse, into a tight-knit community capable of action and disruption that harms all citizens, but particularly the minority groups they are presently fixated upon. By utilizing social media and websites Holocaust deniers have gained a new lease on life. The government can significantly hamper these organizations from taking meaningful actions, and from coalescing in the first place by denying them their favored and most effective platform.

[1] Savaricas, Nathalie, “Greece’s neo-fascists are on the rise... and now they’re going into schools: How Golden Dawn is nurturing the next generation”, The Independent, 2 February 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greeces-neofascists-are-on-the-rise-and-now-theyre-going-into-schools-how-golden-dawn-is-nurturing-the-next-generation-8477997.html

Candidate 1: "The internet is a flourishing place for discourse because it is absolutely free to all, and everyone accepts and experiences the fruit of that freedom. When the government abandons its stance of neutrality and begins censoring materials, even if it begins only with the nastiest examples, it compromises the copper-fastened liberties that the internet was created to furnish. Many people will abuse that tool, but thankfully people can evade the hate sites easily and never have to experience them without compromising their own freedoms by censoring their opponents."
Candidate 2: "While it is true that Holocaust deniers spread misinformation and seek to undermine and bend the systems of discourse to be as favorable as possible, they are a tiny fringe minority of opinion, and the number of sites debunking their pseudo-history is far greater than that of the actual deniers. Even young people are able to surf the web with great skill, and can easily see that the Holocaust denial position is fringe in the extreme."
Candidate 3: "Denying Holocaust-denier their right to speak is a threat to everyone’s freedom of speech. It is essential in a free society that people be able to express their views without fear of reprisal. As Voltaire said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. As the facts are against the Holocaust deniers their opponents should have no fear of engaging them in open discussion as they will be able to demonstrate how erroneous their opponents are."
Candidate 4: "Forcing Holocaust deniers out of the spotlight and underground can only serve the cause of justice. Surveillance efforts can be employed more rigorously if need be, and will be considerably more legitimate to employ against these groups when their actions are acknowledged to be illegal. With them out of the spotlight they are less likely to rope in new recruits among casual, open-minded internet-goers."
Candidate 5: "Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Holocaust denial does not deserve its day in the sun, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and truth. Besides, the Holocaust deniers are not convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, which is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and legitimize themselves in the marketplace of ideas."
Candidate 6: "Freedom of speech certainly may be curtailed when there is a real harm manifested from it. Holocaust denial, in its refusal to acknowledge one of the most barbaric acts in human history and attempt to justify terrible crimes, is an incredibly dehumanizing force, one that many people suffer from, even if they do not need to read it themselves. We may have the freedom to express ourselves but that does not mean we have the freedom to make up our own facts. The threat Holocaust deniers represent to free society demands that their right to speech online be curtailed."
Candidate 7: "While some people might be enticed by the mystique of Holocaust deniers as transgressors, far more people will be put off by the firm hand of the state denying them a powerful platform from which to speak. Even if some are enticed these individuals will find it much more difficult to access the information they seek and so only the most determined will ultimately be influenced. Some Holocaust deniers will always lurk in the shadows, but society should show no quarter in the battle for truth."
Candidate 8: "Holocaust deniers will always find ways to organize, be it in smaller pockets of face-to-face contact, clandestine social networking, or untraceable black sites online that governments cannot shut down because they cannot find them. The result of blocking these views from the public internet only serves to push their proponents further underground and to make them take less public strategies on board. Ultimately, it is a cosmetic, not substantive solution."

Holocaust deniers will always find ways to organize, be it in smaller pockets of face-to-face contact, clandestine social networking, or untraceable black sites online that governments cannot shut down because they cannot find them. The result of blocking these views from the public internet only serves to push their proponents further underground and to make them take less public strategies on board. Ultimately, it is a cosmetic, not substantive solution.
