> Which makes those screenwriters far, far, far worse than, say, Alex Jones or James Damore, to name two recent victims of the current left-wing “witch hunt”.

I'm honestly surprised to see Jones and Damore mentioned in the same sentence. Jones deliberately spreads misinformation and personally response for directing a lot of hatred and harassment towards innocent people. Damore just published some unpopular (and in my opinion, harmful) views. I lean far left, and even I think that situation was mishandled.

> It turns out that the much-condemned “Hollywood blacklist” (which was not government action, just the act of private businesses!) only listed card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist:
Scholar Thomas Doherty describes how the HUAC hearings swept onto the blacklist those who had never even been particularly active politically, let alone suspected of being Communists: "On March 21, 1951, the name of the actor Lionel Stander was uttered by the actor Larry Parks during testimony before HUAC. "Do you know Lionel Stander?" committee counsel Frank S. Tavenner inquired. Parks replied he knew the man, but had no knowledge of his political affiliations. No more was said about Stander either by Parks or the committee – no accusation, no insinuation. Yet Stander's phone stopped ringing. Prior to Parks's testimony, Stander had worked on ten television shows in the previous 100 days. Afterwards, nothing."

> And, sadly, the crypto-fascist parties like BNP and FN and AfD are probably even more powerful than they would be if you just let them be honest about being fascists.

This is speculation. I'm aware that these groups will continue rebranding and resurfacing, but I don't think a passive approach is effective here. I think a perfect example of this is the Unite the Right rally 1 year ago, vs the reunion this past year. After the events a year ago, many white supremacists were doxxed, shamed, and fired. This year, no one came out to the reunion. If the rally a year ago was a success, do you think that would be the case? I think its reasonable to expect that more people would come out for the event, embolden by previous successes. I know that all the people involved in the rally last year are still white supremacists. My concern is them indoctrinating more members and growing in power. And I think passively letting them have a platform enables them to reach more people, embolden more people, and generally grow in strength.

> The marginal risk of Stalinism that is incurred by not outlawing CPUSA is much smaller than the marginal risk of totalitarianism inherent in ever allowing or normalizing the censorship of any political ideology. And honestly, neo-Nazis are an even bigger joke.

Sure, they may be a joke now. But they are less of a joke now than the were 10 years ago. They have a larger microphone, and while I can't speak for enrollment numbers, the members they have are more active and more visible. They have someone in office that they view as "their guy". By letting them have their platform, we risk letting them grow more. And that is not a marginal risk to me. For me, the marginal risk is that we will ban a non-murderous ideology. I see that both less likely, and safer for me personally, than the alternative.