Originally posted by sithsaber408
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.
so, you, the master of all reality, get to decide what is 'planning' and what is not. if the nazi leader says "kill jews" he's innocent, and of he says "kill that jew" he's guilty. ok...right....thank god the law is not in your favor
Originally posted by sithsaber408
How is a hate rally endagering anybody?
Hate promotes hostility. Hostility promotes Violence.
There you go...
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I don't believe that a person expressing their views should be charged with any crime that another person commits, because of those views./B]
Me either. Unless that person was expressing thier instigating views in an atmosphere that would provoke violence, like a nationality pride parade or so.
If you scream out "Go back to your fkn country!" at a Mexican Day Parade, and it causes a riot, and people die...you are held accountable.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
[B]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.
An Anti-War protest does not directly promote violence against the President. An Anti-President rally DOES directly promote the danger of a President.
If us Liberals went in front of the White House, started screaming how much we hate Bush and how much he sucks, and then he gets killed.....you'd probably be the first to blame us for his death.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
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.
Just like Hitler had no authority over the Nazi party who went and rounded up Jews for the concentration camps. 🙄
Originally posted by sithsaber408
It wasn't pre-meditated, it wasn't like he threw a gun to somebody.
The speaker? Hate speech does not somehow provoke hostility ? 😱
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./B]
So......
If I randomly dare a bunch of teenagers to blow up the school, and they do it, am I not guilty ?
If I dare my freinds to beat the shit out of an old lady, and they do it, am I not guilty?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
[B] 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?
❌
Evangelicals are notorious for hate speech. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ann Coulter and the like make a lot of money, popularity, and gain a lot of power through thier hate speech.
Am I surprised that an Evangelical would defend hate speech? No fkn way, because that is the source of thier power.
Am I surprised that you would defend hate speech ? ✅ Very Much so !
Re: Re: Re: Democrat Control Means Hate Bill Will Pass .Free Speech GONE
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Then speech is not free at all.
Meh, that goes back to the whole "no person is ever truly free" since unless one lives in a complete anarchical society there are going to be rules and laws that will limit a persons potential to do whatever they wish. The key is to push it back far enough that a person is liberated enough so that the limits on personal freedom aren't damaging but rather protect the rights of as many as possible at the same time.
In the case I mentioned the plaintiffs won their case, as the court deemed the freedom of speech of one man, in this case, was not inherently greater then an entire groups right to live a life without vilification and not facing potential hatred being incited against them. Now - is Australia suddenly a tyrannical wonderland were a person can't speak their minds? No - however there is a limit on how far a person can go. In the case I mentioned; is one allowed to express their dislike - sure. Their personal opinion that they are bad - sure. But if they cross the line from where they are merely expressing their opinion to potentially inciting others to act upon it in a vilifying or violent way then the balance of liberties and all kicks in. Freedom to live without fear trumps freedom to speak hatefully.
Really, it seems like only another step from anti-discrimination laws. After all, that takes away an employers right to discriminate against a racial or gender group. He might think, and say, "I don't want to hire such and such because his race is *derogatory comment*" - is that allowed? No.