Democrat Control Means Hate Bill Will Pass .Free Speech GONE

Originally posted by Strangelove

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.

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.

Horseshit.

No media person would be implicated in a murder that I decided to commit.

C'mon.

PVS's example is of a murder for hire. A hitman scenario, basically, (except the payment is love/sex/relationship)

It's not an example of hate speech. (in which there IS NO conspiracy to commit murder)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
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.

hold on. thems is double standards. a wife instructs her lover to kill her husband and she is innocent. a nazi leader instructs a crowd to kill a jew, and thats ok. but a terrorist instructs others to fly planes into buildings and thats different. how? because the instructions were more detailed? what if the wife told her lover to stab the man with a knife, and he did just that? what if the nazi leader instructed the crown to hang the man, and they did just that? is that different? the degree of specific intructions? and if so, where is the line between guilty and innocent?

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?

no, i just find it funny how you, a blatant favoritist, will improvise by warping and bending your own logic and philosophy just to avoid being cornered...however you're still cornered. now, answer the question above. in fact if you dont mind i'll load it a bit. let us use for an example al qauda leaders who did not fund the attacks. and since most are dirt poor i think its a safe and valid loading of that question

:edit: and while we're at it, lets say some mafia guy owes you a favor, and you request a hit on someone. no money or items have changed hands, mind you. just an ambiguous favor being repaid. he carries out the hit. so...you're innocent?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Horseshit.

No media person would be implicated in a murder that [b]I decided to commit.

C'mon.

PVS's example is of a murder for hire. A hitman scenario, basically, (except the payment is love/sex/relationship)

It's not an example of hate speech. (in which there IS NO conspiracy to commit murder) [/B]

The person who incites a serious act like a hate crime (especially murder) can easily be charged and convicted for conspiracy to commit murder

Free speech GONE, bitches!

Originally posted by Strangelove
.

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.

We're not talking about the Spanish Inquisition, we are talking about people being aloud to express a view-point. (even a hateful one)

Setting up committees' of people to hold mock trials and executions is far different from you or I stepping out onto a street corner and telling anybody who will listen that we hate ____ and that ____ is evil and should be killed.

We are just lone people, expressing what we believe is true.

Those who would take that message and act on it, are the guilty ones.

I know this may come as a shock, but the people who commit such acts are already pre-disposed to so. They already want to kill the people in that group.

It's the biggest crock of shit ever to blame somebody else who "told me I should do it", along with the person who actually did it.

Are we to arrest people for being influential now?

I can think all I want that your life sucks, and that you have no purpose here.

If I tell you that, and you believe it and jump off of a bridge, I'm not responsible for your death.

I just told you what I thought.

YOU committed the act.

people are arrested for ordering the assault and/or deaths of others, and this pleases me. too bad you're so against it

Originally posted by Strangelove
I was being facetious, I wasn't really suggesting that media men be implicated in a murder. You should know that 🙄

The person who incites a serious act like a hate crime (especially murder) can easily be charged and convicted for conspiracy to commit murder

That's a contradiction.

You admit then that if Mel Gibson says "Jews are responsible for all the wars!" and I believe him and go kill a Jewish person, that nobody is guilty but me?

Not Mel, not the media, but ME?

What the bill in question would be against would be a person making single statements like the Mel Gibson one, not the Nazi-rally's or husband killing lovers that we seem to keep discussing.

Wow. I'm seeing more straw men in this single thread than I did my entire stay in, oh...let's say...Kansas.

*ahem* SS, i asked you 2 very relevant questions

stop whining. now crawl...you worthless little piece of shit, crawl between my legs like the lil bastard u are🙂

i love freedom of expression

deano, this is a privately owned site. if a forum administrator wanted to, he/she could ban you for not vowing to bend over backwards and kiss your own ass, and there wouldnt be a thing you could do about it.

welcome to teh internets

Originally posted by Deano
stop whining. now crawl...you worthless little piece of shit, crawl between my legs like the lil bastard u are🙂

Lies. That is just what they want you to think. Dance puppet, DANCE you sheep!

Originally posted by sithsaber408
That's a contradiction.

You admit then that if Mel Gibson says "Jews are responsible for all the wars!" and I believe him and go kill a Jewish person, that nobody is guilty but me?

Not Mel, not the media, but ME?

What the bill in question would be against would be a person making single statements like the Mel Gibson one, not the Nazi-rally's or husband killing lovers that we seem to keep discussing.

But; if you're standing in a room together with Mel Gibson and he looks you in the eye and says "I want you to go kill a Jew" and you do, he is an accessory to murder.

Why you don't understand this baffles me 🙄

Originally posted by KidRock
Lies. That is just what they want you to think. Dance puppet, DANCE you sheep!

HAHAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. you never fail to amuse. keep up the good work

awww thats cute. you gonna toss his salad now?

Originally posted by PVS
hold on. thems is double standards. a wife instructs her lover to kill her husband and she is innocent. a nazi leader instructs a crowd to kill a jew, and thats ok. but a terrorist instructs others to fly planes into buildings and thats different. how?
B]

Originally posted by sithsaber408
[B]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.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
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.

As I said before, a wife who "instructs" her lover to kill her husband is guilty because she is part of the PLANNING.

(not guilty if she says, "He's such a dick, I wish he was dead." and the other guy does it.)

A terrorist who "instructs" another to fly a plane into a building(or finances such an operation) is guilty because he is part of the PLANNING.

(not guilty if he says, "Americans are evil, they should all die."😉

As for the Nazi rally, I'm going to reneg on that. (slightly)

If the crowd has people in custody, and brings them before the front and the guy says "kill them" he is part of the PLANNING of the murder.

(not guilty if he says "Jews are evil, the should all be killed.", and then the people go and seek out Jewish people and kill them)

That's no different than Mel Gibson saying that they're evil, me listening, and then going to kill a Jew later.

The actual chances of him pointing one out in the street are very slim, to none. (even still, it would be my choice to go across the street and kill the person.)

So,....

no there is no double standards there.

If you PLAN a murder, or are part of assisting it to happen, you are guilty.

If you simply say that you hate a group of people, or a person, and would love to see them dead, that's just talk. Just expression.

Any fool who hears it and carries it out is responsible to himself, and to the law.

Originally posted by PVS
awww thats cute. you gonna toss his salad now?

explain yourself. are you joking or can you not understand sarcasm.

enjoy your voting

Originally posted by Strangelove
But; if you're standing in a room together with Mel Gibson and he looks you in the eye and says "I want you to go kill a Jew" and you do, he is an accessory to murder.

Why you don't understand this baffles me 🙄

I understand it, I just think its bullshit.

I still make the choice to tell him to f*ck off, or to go and kill somebody.

If stand together with you in a room, look you in the eye and say "I want you to kill yourself" and you do, am I responsible for your suicide?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I understand it, I just think its bullshit.

I still make the choice to tell him to f*ck off, or to go and kill somebody.

If stand together with you in a room, look you in the eye and say "I want you to kill yourself" and you do, am I responsible for your suicide?

As for the suicide thing, say I was mentally unbalance and on suicide watch, and you knew this. If you told me to kill myself and I did, yes, you would be held responsible. Not for murder, perhaps, but for reckless endangerment. But if I wasn't all of those things, probably not. There's a lot of context involved in suicide cases

This is in dire need of VVD's legal approach!