"Innocence of Muslims" Crisis

Originally posted by Oliver North
The first three statements are invalidated by your later (fourth in the quoted) point responding the the exact same framing of your position.

also, you really don't get to just say whatever you believe is based on common knowledge, basic knowledge and empirical evidence without demonstrating any one of them.

No, it's not. Maybe in your mind it is. But it really isn't. Being stupid doesn't mean you're not aware of what you're doing.

Originally posted by Oliver North
For your position to be correct, you have to assume a) people can predict the future with 100% accuracy, b) we can know the content of other people's minds with 100% accuracy and c) that Muslims, as a people, are "oversensitive" based on "common knowledge, basic knowledge and empirical evidence".

a) No, it just has to be known by enough people to be considered "common" (religious extremists will resort to violence given any reason, much more a very strong reason to, like in this case). b) Incorrect, intent can be identified without having to read a person's mind. c) As a people, those that take the religion very seriously, are very sensitive of their religion as they hold it in high reverence. So, yes, I can say that many of them tend to be highly sensitive on the subject. And my point has always been

Originally posted by Oliver North
a) just because a government or local majority of people believe something does not make it just, or something I have to endorse

The government or local majority would disagree with you.

Your definition of "just" seems to be subjective to what you want. So maybe in "OliverNorthland" we can all be exposed to your perfect definition of justice.

🙄

No one cares what you "endorse" tbh.

Originally posted by Oliver North
b) I agreed there need to be limits and expressed what I think reasonable limits are...

I reread what you posted. Where EXACTYL did you post "reasonable" limits save your comment regarding IP and copyright infringement?

Originally posted by Oliver North
re: I don't understand libel/slander or IP laws

No, it means that you don't understand what my point was.

Originally posted by Oliver North
You think IP laws are a more egregious violation of free speech than conspiracy laws that prevent people from discussing crimes that don't and may not exist?

I'm not sure... I.. are you just trolling me?

Where exactly did I say this?

Wait, are you responding to some OTHER imaginary poster no one else here can see?

Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, if there is direct harm from those words existing, you are correct. Not if the harm is based on someone's offense to what is said, which is subjective and not a result of the words existing, but a result of how someone feels about it.

this is actually not a complicated point...

Unless your intent was to directly reach the exact audience that would elicit such a response.

Originally posted by Oliver North
lol, wut?

you know what the word "analogy" means right?

Yes, I do. One more direct attack and I'm putting you on ignore, I have no time to deal with toxic debaters.

Originally posted by Oliver North
actually, not an ad hominem in this instance. A personal insult, maybe, but your understanding of the issue we are discussing is a valid point of criticism if it is clear you don't understand.

It is the definition of ad hominem.

You (admittedly) resorting to a personal attack to try and invalidate my point is the VERY DEFINITION of ad hominem. Here's the wiki entry in case you're not all that convinced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You are being presumptuous or desperate to believe that claim to believe what others know simply based on explicitly simplified recounting of events to make a simple point.

You resorting to personal attacks seems to point out that it could be the latter rather than former.

Originally posted by Oliver North
[citation needed]

oh, how silly of me. what exceptional evidence.

Didn't point that out as evidence sport. Just that you don't know who I am and what I know and best to keep things to point rather than (desperately) seeking validation by making personal attacks.

Originally posted by Oliver North
well, yes, it is what I want to do because my point is your simplification is inappropriate, and I've given a number of reasons to support this. You have claimed that, as an expert on "extremist methodology" [sic], you have the truth.

I have claimed no expert knowledge of anything.

Why do you like twisting what everyone says?

Originally posted by Oliver North
Obviously you don't have to agree with me, but I imagine there is little doubt in any reader's mind about which of us has a stronger position.

It is often the person who first claims victory in a debate where no1 is judging that has the weaker position.

You know, let's simplify this debate even further. Let's say you own a cinema. Let's say you invite the most violent black gangbangers in your area to a private screening and allowed them to bring lighters and cigarettes to the screening. Let's say you show them the most inflammatory racist mocking movie that can be made.

Whose fault is it that your cinema burned down?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You know, let's simplify this debate even further. Let's say you own a cinema. Let's say you invite the most violent black gangbangers in your area to a private screening and allowed them to bring lighters and cigarettes to the screening. Let's say you show them the most inflammatory racist mocking movie that can be made.

Whose fault is it that your cinema burned down?

are you actually confusing causality with criminal responsibility?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes, I do. One more direct attack and I'm putting you on ignore, I have no time to deal with toxic debaters.

oh muffin, how could I ever dream of missing out on your incisive observations about the world

please don't hate me

Originally posted by Oliver North
are you actually confusing causality with criminal responsibility?

Humor me. Stop dancing around it and answer my question.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Humor me. Stop dancing around it and answer my question.

the people who burnt down the cinema are guilty of arson

EDIT: hey, I've got one for you:

You walk up to a guy with a gun and say "shoot me". He does. Who is guilty?

Originally posted by Oliver North
the people who burnt down the cinema are guilty of arson

And you think any court in the country would find them guilty given the circumstances (and a decent lawyer)?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
And you think any court in the country would find them guilty given the circumstances (and a decent lawyer)?

yes, I know for a fact any court in my country would find them guilty, because they are the only ones who have committed a crime.

are you 13?

Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, I know for a fact any court in my country would find them guilty, because they are the only ones who have committed a crime.

are you 13?

I see, I guess you must live in some imaginary country. OliverNorthland, perhaps?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/temporary+insanity

🙄

Originally posted by Oliver North
are you 13?

Age insults. How quaint.

/ignore

Edit. Quoted the wrong web entry. Corrected.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I see, I guess you must live in some imaginary country. OliverNorthland, perhaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion

🙄

that is a criminal defense for the arsonists, it doesn't implicate the owner of the cinema in any way...

not to beat a dead horse, but maybe you should read about the things you insist on pretending you know about?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/temporary+insanity

Edit. Quoted the wrong web entry. Corrected.

same as above, this is a criminal defense for the arsonist

also, my country doesn't have a "temporary insanity" defense

Try and WAIT for others to make their points BEFORE making an false assumption, ok?

Never said it implicates him in the crime of arson. Just that enough juries out there would consider that he'd share some of the blame. Good luck in getting his insurance claim. And, I'm sure that if anyone was hurt in the fire, he'd have a fat lawsuit breathing down his neck.

It's obvious you're one of them toxic debaters. And I've already made my point.

I've wasted just about enough time with you.

Originally posted by Oliver North
are you actually confusing causality with criminal responsibility.

Ooh, he's like Shakya. Neat.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Try and WAIT for others to make their points BEFORE making an false assumption, ok?

Never said it implicates him in the crime of arson. Just that enough juries out there would consider that he'd share some of the blame. Good luck in getting his insurance claim. And, I'm sure that if anyone was hurt in the fire, he'd have a fat lawsuit breathing down his neck.

It's obvious you're one of them toxic debaters. And I've already made my point.

I've wasted just about enough time with you.

so you concede that the cinema owner is not legally culpable for the arson of his cinema?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ooh, he's like Shakya. Neat.

😆

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ooh, he's like Shakya. Neat.

Like Castle King how cute... poor gay war veterans

Also, just did a very brief Google look, the idea of black people being found not guilty for crimes as a result of racism is known as "Black Rage", and has been used successfully in a number of cases dating back to the 1880s.

However, the context in which it is used is not remotely comparable to "invited black people over and insulted them", but deals more with situations where a black family, whose home had been picketed for days by 500 white racists, shot one of them. Or of an individual who suffered racism working at a southern plantation as a child and later as an auto worker, who shot those who were oppressing him.

"Black Rage", like all temporary insanity defenses, is an admission of guilt, and often those who successfully use the defense (which is rare) still spend time in hospitals for the criminally insane or end up with simply a reduced sentence. Additionally, "Black Rage" alone never works, and there has to be evidence of real diminished capacity to reason in the individual due to intense racial inequality at, essentially, a social level, the term I'm seeing for it is "social realities".

Not that I'm surprised Nibs didn't know the first thing about the argument he was making....

http://www.law.uconn.edu/system/files/private/harris.pdf (PDF)

Here's a little tidbit I garnered just by doing a little google search.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fighting-words/

Fighting words are words intentionally directed toward another person which are so venomous and full of malice as to cause the hearer to suffer emotional distress or incite him/her to immediately retaliate physically. Fighting words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery. However, if they are so threatening as to cause apprehension, they can form the basis for a lawsuit for assault, even though the words alone don't constitute an assault.

The utterance of fighting words is not protected by the free speech protections of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The words are often evaluated not only by the words themselves, but the context in which they are spoken. Courts generally impose a requirement that the speaker intended to cuase a breach of the peace or incite the hearer to violence.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Fighting words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery. However, if they are so threatening as to cause apprehension, they can form the basis for a lawsuit for assault, even though the words alone don't constitute an assault.

But in this case, with your bee comparison, the bee's attacked months after the kid messed with the beehive. Not even one single bee did a thing till 9/11. No prior bee stings.

This wasn't because of a video.

how dare you over-complicate things with facts!!!

you're such a toxic debater

On fighting words:

United States

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Chaplinsky decision

Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, had purportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching that he was "a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that

[quote]There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

Post-Chaplinsky

The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969), the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "**** the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protester's speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

So, fighting words might be applicable, in a broad interpretation (which it normally isn't and is becoming less so), to the cinema owner scenario, it very much isn't to the innocence of Muslims case, especially considering fighting words must be directed at specific individuals to provoke a response.

Additionally, who would get to sue who? The creators are the defendants, sure, but the plaintiffs aren't Ambassador Steven's family. Nobody said any fighting words to him. And the protesters aren't the plaintiffs, they didn't attack the defendant, they attacked the American government.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You know, let's simplify this debate even further. Let's say you own a cinema. Let's say you invite the most violent black gangbangers in your area to a private screening and allowed them to bring lighters and cigarettes to the screening. Let's say you show them the most inflammatory racist mocking movie that can be made.

Whose fault is it that your cinema burned down?

You do realize the "should have known better" doesn't hold up in court very well in most cases, right?

Humor me, if a woman dresses "slutty", flirts with a bunch of men at a bar, flashes her boobs and such and then ends up getting raped by one or more of those men, whose fault is it that she got raped?