Originally posted by Blakemore
But he wasn't spreading nazism, he even states in the video that he's not racist and just wanted to piss off his gf by pretending their dog was a nazi because she kept saying how cute her dog was by raising it's paw - so he pretended it was a nazi salute. He even apologised and obviously wasn't spreading hate, but still got fined.It's like saying violent video games are promoting violence. They're not.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I guess he learned a valuable lesson about being responsible with his speech.
Yes they are protected by the first amendment.
However that does not mean that there won’t be consequences for their actions.
People are free to not wear masks right now. However that means they won’t be able to enter most public areas
People who don’t get a vaccination when it is available will likely have trouble traveling because there is talk of airlines requiring proof of a vaccination before accepting them onto the flight.
Could also see children not allowed to attend public school who don’t get vaccinated.
Originally posted by BackFire
Yes they are protected by the first amendment.However that does not mean that there won’t be consequences for their actions.
People are free to not wear masks right now. However that means they won’t be able to enter most public areas
People who don’t get a vaccination when it is available will likely have trouble traveling because there is talk of airlines requiring proof of a vaccination before accepting them onto the flight.
Could also see children not allowed to attend public school who don’t get vaccinated.
Wow, that sounds a lot like consequences.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEIrresponsibility is not malice, dude.
They are not entirely different things at all. They are the same thing by a matter of degrees.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEOkay, I see where this is going. Governments in Europe and elsewhere have orchestrated lockdowns where businesses are forced to close down or wear masks and protective plastic due to the virus spreading through the mouth and nose via airborn travel, like all viruses. I've seen the same people wearing the masks behind the barriers, you'd think they shouldn't bother right? No, it's because they're taking the precaution that they're still around. It's a pandemic. Nurses were getting sick and catching the virus before serious precautions were taking place. I think anti-virus protests are putting other people lives at risk and spreading misinformation and something should be done to prevent them. Trump's nonsense about how he shouldn't wear a mask only to get the virus and give it to his son speaks volumes, but it's ok because not only can he afford the best healthcare available, he's the goddamn president.
Wow, that sounds a lot like consequences.
Originally posted by Blakemore
Okay, I see where this is going.
They want the ability to suppress speech they deem offensive. That is where this is going, though they will not admit it.
I think anti-virus protests are putting other people lives at risk
Any protest where everyone isn't social distancing and wearing masks puts people at risk according to the experts.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEYes, and manslaughter is a crime and warrents punishment! Murder, however, is not only killing a person, it's out of madness. It's a much bigger crime and in some cases, incurable. But this case https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40478679 is hardly the same tier as Jeffry Dahmer.
Are those people still dead regardless, or nah?
Originally posted by Blakemore
Yes, and manslaughter is a crime and warrents punishment! Murder, however, is not only killing a person, it's out of madness. It's a much bigger crime and in some cases, incurable. But this case https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40478679 is hardly the same tier as Jeffry Dahmer.
Yet, regardless of intent, people are still dead. So it is almost like intent does not effect outcomes, only matters in the context of punishment. Thanks for agreeing.
Judges can and have used intention when handing out the minimums or maximums in sentencing . eg say the convicted is looking at anywhere between 10-20 years for *crime*, the judge may hand out the minimum allowed if it came out during the trial that the accused lacked malice or had intended for something else when the crime happened.
Though as you said, dead is still dead when it comes to that.
Originally posted by Robtard
Judges can and have used intention when handing out the minimums or maximums in sentencing . eg say the convicted is looking at anywhere between 10-20 years for *crime*, the judge may hand out the minimum allowed if it came out during the trial that the accused lacked malice or had intended for something else when the crime happened.Though as you said, dead is still dead when it comes to that.
Right. Dead is dead. The intention does not change that. It only matters in the context of punishment.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEI've been saying that the whole time. I don't get your point. Are you saying we should punish stupidity?
Yet, regardless of intent, people are still dead. So it is almost like intent does not effect outcomes, only matters in the context of punishment. Thanks for agreeing.