Last week, the previously unknown individual behind a popular neo-Nazi web comic known as Stonetoss was identified on Twitter/X by antifascist researchers from the Anonymous Comrades Collective. This was followed by a concentrated campaign by Twitter/X...
I’m seeing some discussion in the comments about the ethics of doxxing in this case and I would like to discuss that. I believe that doxxing this individual is ethical if the goal is a more tolerant and equitable society.
Is it generally ethical to shoot people with guns to kill them? Generally not, I think we can all agree. What about shooting the SS soldier who has come to murder you and your loved ones? What about shooting the SS soldier who has come to your neighborhood not to murder you or your loved ones but one of your neighbors? In these cases most people who are not SS officers will agree these are acceptable times to kill. It’s still a terrible thing to kill someone regardless of the circumstances, but in these instances there weren’t other options. The reason there weren’t other options is that the Nazi party created an environment where certain groups of people had no option other than to escape by any means necessary.
The above example of appropriate uses of violence is further down the line than what we are discussing here, which is an attempt to establish the kind of society described above. It is a moral imperative to stop this attempt. Fortunately we live in a society where it is generally unacceptable to be a Nazi even among the right (regardless of that they would support it if it was not traditionally hated). Doxxing in this case ties an identity to the propaganda, subverting the anonymity which although in many cases is valuable was abused in this case and should have been revoked as it has been.
There is no moral equivalence here of the reverse. If an anonymous individual had a reputation for speaking controversial truths for pro-social purposes, for example condemning the genocide currently being carried out by the state of Israel as an Israeli citizen, and was doxxed so that they would be silenced the effect is a world with fewer challenges to these kinds of atrocities. Where doxxing the Nazi resulted in the reduction of the promotion of a violent ideology, doxxing the activist resulted in less reduction of a violent ideology. While there are definitely ethical gray areas and plenty of disagreement, there is plenty of agreement for good reason that promoting Nazi ideology is not in a gray area. Just as it would be inappropriate to denounce killing in the context of those defending themselves from Nazis, it is inappropriate to denounce the doxxing of a Nazi to prevent the promotion of the kind of culture which Nazis desire.
I agree with your argument, but would like to add something about this part
Firing shots at the SS officier to protect someone is not the same action as executing someone (which is ehat the SS officer is planning in your example). Yes firing shots might kill them, but its not necessarily the goal of that action. I think there is a big difference between doing violence with the intent to kill and doing violence with the intent to stop, chase of or scare away.
That difference is why I agree with the “by any means necessary” sentiment of militant antifascism.
This is a great point. The intent in either case is to avoid violence even in the case violence was used as a means of escape. Hans Graebener wasn’t doxed because of a hate campaign against people like him, he was doxxed because he was fueling a hate campaign against vulnerable people. This is a defensive act.
Are you implying it’s immoral to kill nazis if your goal is to kill nazis?
I get why my comment might seem that way, but I am pretty sure I am not making any moral judgements and instead only state my own perspective.
Why should killing ever be your goal? I am not going to say you are a bad person for doing or believing that, but I really dont get why anyone would want to do that.