@AC Re: Cameron talking crap again
A capital after a full stop is not a matter of style, it's a matter of grammar.
You originally said this "is" totalitarianism, not that it is "leading to [it]". I won't deal with your second claim about what this is leading to. Your claim that this "is" it, seems to me not to match the common dictionary understanding of totalitarianism.
As for "In a nutshell, the call for (non-State sanctioned) violence is itself already illegal in liberal democracies, so attempting to make the vehicle for said calls also illegal is redundant and subject to misuse." I think you completely fail to grasp the purpose of the criminalisation of "non-State sanctioned" (sic) violence and its promotion. The purpose is to minimise such violence. Measures which are vital to achieving this purpose are anything but redundant: they are the purpose for which the original criminalisation of violence-promotion was enacted.
If, then, you criminalise the original making of a statement calling for violence, but not, for example, the infinite rebroadcast of that statement on social media (which is the position you advocate), you a) fail to prevent the initial call (because these people are often beyond our borders, and criminalisation of online activity is a very weak deterrent, cf copyright theft), and b) you end up with the message they posted, endlessly rebroadcast. Ergo, you end up with their pro-violence propaganda being essentially permitted - in law and in fact.
Knowingly hosting pro-violence propaganada seems to me entirely culpable. It is this which regulation properly prohibits. I don't see how you can claim that it is not culpable and worthy of criminalisation.
Oh and I think your drawing moral equivalence between "state-sanctioned" and most unlawful violence is unsupportible. We cannot have individuals or militia deciding and enforcing disagreements privately through force. A sovereign authority is required, one accountable to the people and its representatives.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
