I understand your point, but you just compared some guy removing his freely-released code from the Internet to a gang of people who went around lynching black people.
No he didn't (mature, right?), he was just showing the obvious flaw in the argument by taking it to its extreme. He did not in any way compayre _why to the KKK.
His and your analysis of the argument is incorrect, and I'm surprised you'd endorse such a Godwin-violating^ argument.
^ Yes, I know the KKK are not technically Nazis.
Leaving personalities out of it, there is a big qualitative difference between ceasing to share something (in the worst case, undirected passive-aggressive behavior) and actively attacking other people (in the worst case, highly directed active-aggressive behavior).
Maybe I wasn't very clear in my original statement. I wasn't reaching into the past and saying that the KKK burning crosses on lawns and lynching black people is a right in any way, shape or form. That sort of activity is illegal whether or not it is 'hatred' related and for good reason. Nowadays the KKK is pretty much just another protest group. They show up to places having to do with race and protest (or try to agitate opposing protesters). My point basically being 'freedom of speech' (i.e. the KKK expressing their racist attitudes by speaking or writing/publishing) is their right.
In any case, with or without the statement involving the KKK, I believe that my final statement in that post stands.
The editing clock has expired on my post above. I appreciate your point which was why I abstracted things into general terms - I still feel the qualitative difference is there, not because of specific history or PC-ness.
It's like if I was mad for some reason (eg my zero karma above) and responded by flaming you vs. simply not answering.
