"It is good to beat your woman, but only on the legs and belly"

[Drogue]

What for? There is no crime being broken there.

If a boy was obsessed with a film, like say A Clockwork Orange, and went out and committed a copycat killing, civil proceedings could be brought against the film makers. It's not illegal to depict it, it's not incitement, but it did (arguably) make the crime happen.

[Whaleboy]

No, but a refusal to publish. It also depends on the level of incitement. Telling people that beating a cheating wife is one thing, and is espousing an opinion. Telling a person to beat their wife is another, and is incitement.

And we're not incited to do stuff all the time? Where do we draw the line? Utilitarianism won't help us because there is no immediate utility gained, and in terms of intent, we all want a better world so we can't call this guy evil.

Refusal to publish, as long as its private (I choose not to publish another mans works) is fine, as long as no-one is actively preventing the possibility of publication imo.

Now, I wouldn't consider him completely liable, but to say what he did was completely legal is going too far IMHO.

Liable and consequentially responsible? Perhaps. Enough to warrant measures taken against him? Of course. Enough to warrent punitive legal actions? I'm not convinced.

Only Swiss neutrality and Dutch acceptance to go

Ah! The Heinekken theory of inductive morality...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drogue
What for? There is no crime being broken there.

I forgot to mention (I said it in another post) that in this scenario, abortions are illegal.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kucinich
I forgot to mention (I said it in another post) that in this scenario, abortions are illegal.

Actually no, they wouldn't win. The person sueing would have to show how they lost out due to the abortion. A father who's wife aborted, illegally, their child, could try, but they'd have to show that the pro-abortion candidate showed them how to commit a crime, or made the crime able for them to commit it, or told them to commit the crime, or something like that. Simply saying "abortion should be legal" isn't enough to warrant even civil action.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Ah! The Heinekken theory of inductive morality...

Of course

[Spiffor]

Kucinich:
See LOTM's post, he hits the nail. There is a strong difference between the advocacy of a change in policy, and actual incitement at violent behaviour. This is a debate we already had with pedophilia, and I have the same opinions as before: advocate for policy changes if you want, but incitation is a strict no-no.

[Kuciwalker]

Saying people "ought to do this" isn't particularly different from saying people "ought to be allowed to do this". It's semantics. He's not standing in front of a mob - in those cases, immediate public safety obvious supercedes immediate freedom of expression. He isn't calling for everyone to do this in defiance of the law.

[Spiffor]

Except that he gives a religious approval to wife-beating, and gives precise instructions for a kosher hallal wife-beating.

[Kuciwalker]

Not instructions, limitations. Would you rather he NOT put those limitations?

[Kirnwaffen]

I love the French concept of free speech. Sure, you can say whatever you want, as long as it doesn't offend the state or conflict with its laws or policies. Let freedom ring.

[Spiffor]

Free speech isn't absolute here indeed. There are very few places outside of the US where the freedom of speech is absolute.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Telling a person to beat their wife is another, and is incitement.

Not when it is said in the general case. It is 'incitement' only when it is done in specific cases. So, a Klan member can write a book saying the KKK should kill all the Jews, but he can't hold a rally and order those people there to find a Jew and kill them (unless they don't actually go out and do it).

There is a subtle difference between general advocation of violence (freedom of speech) and specific advocation of violence (incitement).

Remember, in the US, hate books are not illegal, but are protected by freedom of speech.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

communist mayor of this Imam's city has immediately begun the judicial process against the imam.

Funny, but I consider this to be MUCH worse than the Imam's statements. Like I will continue to say, free speech as no place in Europe it seems.

Another thing, if a woman said that women should kick the crap out of their cheating lovers would such a stir be created? Just food for thought.

I agree with Imran.

France has, along with it's banning of headscarves and skullcaps, betrayed the enlightment. In it's actions, it has shown utter contempt for individual rights and minority rights. It seems as though France rather then accepting idea of tolerance and pluaralism, seems intent as imposing strictly it's atheistic ideology. They are almost as though they are secular fundamentalists.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
It seems as though France rather then accepting idea of tolerance and pluaralism

Sorry if we do not tolerate the advocacy of wife-beating

If for you, an enlughtened country is one where wife-beating is rampant in a part of the population that feels it is OK, then I don't want to be part of your enlightenment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry if we do not tolerate the advocacy of wife-beating

What was it Voltaire said: "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it"?

If for you, an enlughtened country is one where wife-beating is rampant in a part of the population that feels it is OK, then I don't want to be part of your enlightenment.

An incredible strawman, so large that it must be blocking out the sun in your neck of the woods. Allowing people to have opinions means that those opinions are 'rampant'? I'm sure NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) would love to hear that.