Democrat Control Means Hate Bill Will Pass .Free Speech GONE

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Very few outside of religions claim to have found absolute truth. To be searching for it is different. That is what most legal systems try to do.

That is a rather optimistic...well, lets just say it, wrong view. They are not searching for absolute truth. But how to run a country fair and secure for the citizens (well, they should). I suppose there are also those that aim to give the government more power to oppress it's people.

But I don't think you can really call others too idealistic with such a view of.

[edit] Well, PVS said idealistic...but still.

Originally posted by PVS
to condemn 'hate speech' which does not endanger the lives of others imho is a tremendous breach in freedom of speech. however according to black/white thinking i can say that freedom of speech would mean having the right to lie in court and even perhaps hire a hitman.

IMHO, people lie in courst as it is. I can't say for sure, or even guess how that would be influence if a complete freedom of speech is to be implemented.

This is the greatest difficulty with the idea of freedom of speech - that it brings so many difficulties with itself.

In America, what is the speech like there? Are you allowed to say anything and everything to anybody?
Use of certain derogatry words, can you be liable for racism, or homophobia?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No.

You cannot use phrase ''freedom of speech'' then staert spuring bullshit about limitations of it.
There is no freedom of speech, and if there is, it is UNLIMITED. Fact.

If you feel happy thinking that freedom of speech is free upuntil some point, and then its not anymore, than thats fine. It does not make it so, however.

Not really idealism. I am not for a complete freedom of speech anyway.
I was marely responding to the idea that people use term ''freedom of speech'' then condem hate speech.

You can't have both. It is simple as that.

Not sure what you base that on.

How would freedom of speech make certain crimes non-criminal?

Um, yes. Because you ARE free to say and do what you want. Until you do something that infringes on the rights of someone else. Do you know how often it is that the limitations are actually needed to be enforced? Very rare.

If you don't like the gov't, you can go out and say "I don't like how they're doing things." And people might not agree with you, but it's your right to say it, and theirs to disagree. But what you don't have the right to do is go around and say that anyone who disagrees with what the gov't says needs to die, because at that point you are infringing upon their rights, and should someone go out and actually kill someone, then the blame can ultimately be laid on you for inciting it in the first place.

And as for absolute freedom of speech making crimes non-criminal - it's a crime to hire someone to murder another person. It's a crime to lie under oath. If freedom of speech were absolute, it would be illegal to make these things illegal.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

Not sure what you base that on.

How would freedom of speech make certain crimes non-criminal?

Well, because various crimes are literally speech-based.

Aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring. All of those can be applied to murder, rape, theft, whatever you want, and with equal sentences.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
IMHO, people lie in courst as it is. I can't say for sure, or even guess how that would be influence if a complete freedom of speech is to be implemented.

This is the greatest difficulty with the idea of freedom of speech - that it brings so many difficulties with itself.

In America, what is the speech like there? Are you allowed to say anything and everything to anybody?
Use of certain derogatry words, can you be liable for racism, or homophobia?

yeah, so long as you're not endangering anyone you can say whatever the hell you want. however you need a permit from the government to protest the government.

:edit: to answer your statement/question of lying in court, yes it would be allowed if freedom of speech was absolute. and yes, people lie in court all the time but its also a criminal offense to do so. its like you said, freedom of speech, in a black/white sense, is the freedom to say anything at any time.

Freedom of Speech is not absolute...and I am glad PVS brought that up.

Hate Speech is not 100% protected, and speech that endangers the safety of a person or people is unlawful.

Originally posted by Lana

If you don't like the gov't, you can go out and say "I don't like how they're doing things." And people might not agree with you, but it's your right to say it, and theirs to disagree. But what you don't have the right to do is go around and say that anyone who disagrees with what the gov't says needs to die, because at that point you are infringing upon their rights, and should someone go out and actually kill someone, then the blame can ultimately be laid on you for inciting it in the first place.

That's all true except for the end part.

Nobody is forced to go do anything because of what somebody else SAYS.

They choose to listen to a racist, or biggot, etc... and they even further choose to take those ideas to heart and act upon them through violence or murder.

The biggot or racist is not to blame, but the murderer is.

If they are gullible or stupid enough to fall into whatever message is being presented, that's their own issue.

As long as the speaker never commits any criminal act, he is in fact, innocent of said act.

(this obviously doesn't include inciting panic or a riot by shouting "fire!", but is meant to include hateful speech, which is the subject under discussion)

The person speaking hate is not responsible for the grown adult who acts on it. (if such is the case)

Is there no f*cking accountability in this world any more?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is a rather optimistic...well, lets just say it, wrong view. They are not searching for absolute truth. But how to run a country fair and secure for the citizens (well, they should). I suppose there are also those that aim to give the government more power to oppress it's people.

But I don't think you can really call others too idealistic with such a view of.

[edit] Well, PVS said idealistic...but still.

But they do it on moral cause. That is the establishment of nearly all modern law- an attempt to define that which is right or wrong. Nothing to do with me being optimistic, it is just how it works.

It's just one of the many paradoxes of ideals versus expectations. People believe in free speech....but wait....I don't like what they're saying. What can I do? Nothing. The only form of speech that isn't protected is intentionally fraudulent speech (slander, libel).

People who want to band flag burning are hurting America. Flag burning is symbolic speech, therefore protected by the Constitution. Hate speech, while undesirable, is also protected by the Constitution. As the famous quote goes: "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

That's the America I know and love

Originally posted by sithsaber408

The biggot or racist is not to blame, but the murderer is.

Personally, I pretty much agree; I don't think that people just suddenly get these ideas when someone says "do this to these people because of who they are". Just like how people blame kids committing violent crimes on video games and music - I don't buy it for a second, because most of the time they've had the idea already in their head.

On one hand, I think that if someone allows themselves to be so easily influenced by what someone says to do, or to be influenced by a game or something, then 1) they've got some mental issues already, and 2) the idea to do so was in their head already.

But on the other hand, there's the argument that the hate speech that someone goes on with could be the triggering factor that causes someone to go out and commit murder.

And then there are cases such as in cults, where followers are all but brainwashed.

It's a sticky situation and a bit of a slippery slope, and something I think really needs to be investigated in-depth with every individual case.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
That's all true except for the end part.

Nobody is forced to go do anything because of what somebody else SAYS.

They choose to listen to a racist, or biggot, etc... and they even further choose to take those ideas to heart and act upon them through violence or murder.

The biggot or racist is not to blame, but the murderer is.

If they are gullible or stupid enough to fall into whatever message is being presented, that's their own issue.

As long as the speaker never commits any criminal act, he is in fact, innocent of said act.

(this obviously doesn't include inciting panic or a riot by shouting "fire!", but is meant to include hateful speech, which is the subject under discussion)

The person speaking hate is not responsible for the grown adult who acts on it. (if such is the case)

Is there no f*cking accountability in this world any more?

who said that a murderer should not be held accountable for a murder? anyone? anyone? no? no

if someone stirs up a crowd with "kill the jews" and they kill a jew, damn right he's an accessory. THATS accountability

Originally posted by PVS
who said that a murderer should not be held accountable for a murder? anyone? anyone? no? no

if someone stirs up a crowd with "kill the jews" and they kill a jew, damn right he's an accessory. THATS accountability

Nope, nobody did. Nor did I imply that they did. Lana's original point was that the person who incites the murder, should be considered guilty along with the killer themselves. That was what was under discussion, and nowhere was the asertion made by me that we were advocating letting the killer go. (do try to keep up)

Again, I disagree.

All the person did was to express an idea, or thought.

He didn't pick up a bat or a rope and use it; nor did he provide one or force anybody else to use one.(the only two ways, other than planning, that could make him an "accessory"😉

Those that would kill the Jews in the scenario you describe, are the ones guilty.

The ones who do so already have it in their minds and hearts to do it, for whatever reasons, or they are stupid and gullible beyond belief to listen to another person and do what they didn't believe in doing before.

Let's say we all met somewhere, a KMC meet and greet. And upon seeing you, I said, "There's that PVS, the provoking, harrasing, playing drama, and antics king! He's a piece of shit liberal pussy! Y'all should kill this man!"

If the crowd rises up and kills you, its they who are guilty of the crime, not me. They choose to listen, and to believe, and to follow through.

I didn't plan with them, assist with them, or commit your murder with them.

I just suggested it.

If they choose to act on it, much as fool would act on the old suggestion of "Kill the umpire!", then they are responsible.

THAT is accountability.

Realising that you made your choice to take whatever action, and that no matter what any other person said, you are the one comitting the crime.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Let's say we all met somewhere, a KMC meet and greet. And upon seeing you, I said, "There's that PVS, the provoking, harrasing, playing drama, and antics king! He's a piece of shit liberal pussy! Y'all should kill this man!"

If the crowd rises up and kills you, its they who are guilty of the crime, not me. They choose to listen, and to believe, and to follow through.

you need to study up on law. you would have been charged as an accessory to the crime. there is what is and what you make up. please learn the difference between fact and opinion. is that how you would like it to be? fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but as i said, your view on the law in this regard is factually wrong

:edit: lets put it in simpler terms. lets say you're dating some girl and it turns out she's married. she asks you to kill her husband so you two can be together. (not jokingly, but requests that he be killed) you then kill him. do you think she was just expressing her opinion? should that be her freedom?
should only you be charged or is she an accessory to say the least?

Originally posted by PVS

:edit: lets put it in simpler terms. lets say you're dating some girl and it turns out she's married. she asks you to kill her husband so you two can be together. (not jokingly, but requests that he be killed) you then kill him. do you think she was just expressing her opinion? should that be her freedom?
should only you be charged or is she an accessory to say the least?

I made the choice to kill her husband. She didn't make me.

She can say whatever the hell she wants.

It's up to me to say: "No, just leave him." or "No, lets just keep on screwing." or "No you crazy byitch, I'm outta here."

It's also up to me to go get a gun and shoot him, if that's my choice.

I understand that she is legally responsible in THIS case, since she was part of the planning, but that's not what we were originally discussing.

We are discussing hate speech, and the right to express it. (or lack therof.)

In the cases that have been mentioned so far (by you and others) we were speaking about a biggoted racist talking either to a large crowd, or to a small group of people, about how he hates such and such a group, and how he thinks that they should all be dead.

If the few people or the mob act on his suggestion, then its their dumb-asses that are to blame for the death.

The speaker may doing little more than venting after a bad day at work, or getting pulled over by an ethnic cop. (or a full-out biggoted racist, it makes no difference)

They have no responsibility to check and see if their audience is either:

1.) already motivated to commit such and act or

2.) stupid and gullible enough to go out and do it "cuz he said so."

Example:

Drunken, angry biggot Mel Gibson says that "The Jews are responsible for all the wars!"

I believe he's right and go kill a Jew.

Do they charge Mel?

❌

no, they dont, however gibson was not endangering anyone. dont switch the topic. if he was at some nazi rally and pointed out jews and said to kill them he would be charged. factually. charged.

also, let it be known that by your opinion of what law should be, bin laden and every other terrorist mouthpiece would be innocent of any crime. (with exception to bin laden's funding that is) ...or are you going to go on and explain why thats different 😬

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Nope, nobody did. Nor did I imply that they did. Lana's original point was that the person who incites the murder, should be considered guilty along with the killer themselves. That was what was under discussion, and nowhere was the asertion made by me that we were advocating letting the killer go. (do try to keep up)

Again, I disagree.

All the person did was to express an idea, or thought.

He didn't pick up a bat or a rope and use it; nor did he provide one or force anybody else to use one.(the only two ways, other than planning, that could make him an "accessory"😉

Those that would kill the Jews in the scenario you describe, are the ones guilty.

The ones who do so already have it in their minds and hearts to do it, for whatever reasons, or they are stupid and gullible beyond belief to listen to another person and do what they didn't believe in doing before.

Let's say we all met somewhere, a KMC meet and greet. And upon seeing you, I said, "There's that PVS, the provoking, harrasing, playing drama, and antics king! He's a piece of shit liberal pussy! Y'all should kill this man!"

If the crowd rises up and kills you, its they who are guilty of the crime, not me. They choose to listen, and to believe, and to follow through.

I didn't plan with them, assist with them, or commit your murder with them.

I just suggested it.

If they choose to act on it, much as fool would act on the old suggestion of "Kill the umpire!", then they are responsible.

THAT is accountability.

Realising that you made your choice to take whatever action, and that no matter what any other person said, you are the one comitting the crime.

Let's say you are in a red state. A very red neck, old fashioned red state.

You are white and good looking (lets just say for arguments sake) so you are in an area where the Ku Klux Klan heavily reside. They accept you, because you look like them, and you fit in with what they consider to be the superior race.

However, you notice there's a black person in the woods....he looks like he is trying to leave the town unnoticed...you see him from a distance, but no one else does.

So you go "What the hell is that n*gger doing here? Guys look ! There's a negro there!"

Or let's not even go that far...let's just say you go "Oh, whose that guy?"

Either way, you have pointed the attention from ignorance to the presence of a black person. The KKK would have not seen him there if you hadn't mentioned his presence, but because you DID, they chase him, shoot him, and hang him.

Ooooops doh

Your words were just as deadly as thier guns. Words can be just as dangerous as physical actions.

Hate Speech or speech that puts someone's life in danger is not acceptable, and is punishable by law. Accept it already.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You are white and good looking (lets just say for arguments sake) so you are in an area where the Ku Klux Klan heavily reside. They accept you, because you look like them, and you fit in with what they consider to be the superior race.

However, you notice there's a black person in the woods....he looks like he is trying to leave the town unnoticed...you see him from a distance, but no one else does.

So you go "What the hell is that n*gger doing here? Guys look ! There's a negro there!"

Or let's not even go that far...let's just say you go "Oh, whose that guy?"

Either way, you have pointed the attention from ignorance to the presence of a black person. The KKK would have not seen him there if you hadn't mentioned his presence, but because you DID, they chase him, shoot him, and hang him.

[b]Ooooops doh

Your words were just as deadly as thier guns. Words can be just as dangerous as physical actions.

Hate Speech or speech that puts someone's life in danger is not acceptable, and is punishable by law. Accept it already. [/B]

If thats really your example then simply pointing out a person isn't against the law.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Example:

Drunken, angry biggot Mel Gibson says that "The Jews are responsible for all the wars!"

I believe he's right and go kill a Jew.

Do they charge Mel?

❌

With a famous quote oft repeated by media people they can't charge Mel, because he only said it once. All of the people who repeated it on television would be implicated.

Charles Manson cited The Beatles' White Album as his source of inspiration. Did they charge the Beatles? No, because they aren't responsible for peoples' wrongful interpretations of their work. Same with Lee Harvey Oswald saying Jane Fonda spoke to him in code telling him to assassinate Kennedy.

PVS's example is quite good. If your married lover implores you to kill her husband, and you do it, she is an accessory and would be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder.

Originally posted by PVS
no, they dont, however gibson was not endangering anyone. dont switch the topic. if he was at some nazi rally and pointed out jews and said to kill them he would be charged. factually. charged.

also, let it be known that by your opinion of what law should be, bin laden and every other terrorist mouthpiece would be innocent of any crime. (with exception to bin laden's funding that is) ...or are you going to go on and explain why thats different 😬

How is a hate rally endagering anybody?

They are held legally all the time. (under police guard, for the racists safety, but still)

You may be right about him being charged, but then we're back to square one.

That was my whole point at the beginning of the thread.

I don't believe that a person expressing their views should be charged with any crime that another person commits, because of those views.

An anti-war protest rally that produces an assasination of the president shouldn't be targeted, just the assasin and anybody that planned the killing, or provided a means for it.

It's absurd to think that we should charge people for having influence.

Even in an extreme case that you mention, like a Nazi rally, where the speaker points out a Jewish person and says that the people should kill them.

Because the speaker has no authority, no rank other than what the people in the crowd give him in their own minds.

They choose to listen to his words, and to actually physically go over and grab the person, and do whatever it is that results in the death of the person.

It wasn't pre-meditated, it wasn't like he threw a gun to somebody.

If all he does is stay up on the stage and point and shout, then he's guilty of pointing and shouting.

The people on the floor are grown adults that choose whether or not they believe in his (or her) bullshit, and even further choose whether or not they will act on those beliefs.

Yes I'll explain why its different. Bin laden and every terrorist "leader" (not those that commit the actual bombing or whatever) is a "planner". They are involved in the pre-meditated set-up of a killing, and as you said, financing it.

If it were provable that they did no such thing, only spoke on the evils of America and how muslims should kill us, then no.

They haven't done anything except express an opinion.

I find it funny as hell that I, the evangelical Christian conservative am arguing for free speech, and that you the liberal democrat, are saying that it means I'm in support of the terrorists.

Don't you?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I find it funny as hell that I, the evangelical Christian conservative am arguing for free speech, and that you the liberal democrat, are saying that it means I'm in support of the terrorists.

Don't you?

Do you think that the Inquisitors at the Spanish Inquisition weren't guilty because they only 'suggested' or 'expressed their opinion' that the Jews should be burned at the stake? Your logic is quite poor.