In Aftermath of New Zealand Attack r/monarchism Bans Those From 'Radicalizing' Subreddits

The tragedy that struck New Zealand on March 15th has
focused many minds on the threat posed by radicalized
individuals. The responses have varied as people try to come
​to grip with how to prevent these sorts of acts of violence in
the future.

This has led many to analyze the shooter's manifesto for some
clue as to how he was radicalized. The shooter actually laid
out how his political beliefs changed over time:

"No, when I was young I was a communist, then an anarchist and finally a
libertarian before coming to be an eco-fascist."

r/monarchism (which has in recent months been subject
to brigading from members of both communist and anarchist
subreddits, with such raids often including threats of violence
and discriminatory remarks towards others) has decided to
bring down the banhammer on any user that comes from
subreddits ascribing to the ideologies that led to the shooter's
radicalization. The mods have made only one exception to this
'New Zealand Rule':

"If you are coming here from such a sub in good faith, wishing to abandon the
ideology that caused such a tragedy in favor of one which offers social stability and
lawful order, please make this clear in your fist post here or be sure to include a
disavowal of these hate groups in your appeal to the mods."

Analysis

While the killing of Her Majesty's New Zealand subjects
should be met with a firm response I'm not sure this ban is
the right one. r/monarchism's former policy was to welcome
anyone who was willing to debate in good faith:

"Can I say I'm opposed to monarchy? Yes, but you should elaborate on it and
keep it relevant to the discussion. Commenting on an articles about a monarch
dying with "one step closer to a republic" will get you banned (for more than one
reason), but commenting that you do not think monarchy is better because
[reasons] is allowed. However, saying a monarch is a monarch ergo he is bad is
not an actual reason, it's a bias and is not allowed."

And with each instance of brigading we did get a few people
who were curious about what we believed. Did it make up for
all the headaches that came along with being brigaded?
Perhaps not. But those were some of the more interesting
​conversations to have. And it is those people who this rule
change will effect, not those who intend to cause trouble.

​A second concern is that a person can be radicalized by just
about anything. While this shooter's path to radicalization
was through a set of ideologies that are largely unfriendly to
monarchism, that may not be the case in the future. What is
​the subreddit to do if a shooter motivated by Catholicism or
Russian Orthodoxy shows up? Fairness would dictate that
either this rule would have to go or half the subreddit's
membership would.

Finally, the requirement to disavow the proscribed ideologies
risks catching others in the same net. The main ones in this
case would be anarcho-monarchists, but potentially also
distributionists. Neither are particularly common but
their potential exclusion narrows the range of debate. If only
​by a small amount. 

I honestly don't think the rule change will be all that effective
or durable enough to remain in force permanently.

Full Disclosure: I am a mid-ranking mod of r/monarchism.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour