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

[Whaleboy]

Such statements should be illegal

If I held and stated that opinion should I be subject to legal retribution?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drogue
11, now DrSpike's been initiated.

Wow, already? It feels like yesterday that our 8th deity (Rah) was introduced.

[Verres]

As crazy as i think this man is, i dont think it should be illegal for him to say things like this. Incitement shouldnt be a crime - its not his fault if people are stupid and impressionable enough to do what he says.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
If I held and stated that opinion should I be subject to legal retribution?

For thinking so? - no
For stating so in a close audience of acquaintances? - no
For stating so to a wide audience? - yes

Speech is a form of action already. It is not entirely innocent despite what pro-pure-free-speech seem to believe. Actual violence is harmful, but a call to violence can be even more harmful, if it convinces people to act upon these words. One who publishes violent speeches should be held responsible for such an action.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Verres
As crazy as i think this man is, i dont think it should be illegal for him to say things like this. Incitement shouldnt be a crime - its not his fault if people are stupid and impressionable enough to do what he says.

Or stupid enough to have been forced into arranged marriages with people who are stupid enough to believe it?

[Verres]

Being forced into an arranged marriage wouldnt make them stupid. But sure, if you want to use emotive arguements to make me out as some uncaring fanatic, feel free.

[lord of the mark]

Possibile speech

1. "Wife beating should be legalized"
2. " Its OK to beat your wife"
3. "Its OK to beat your wife, and heres how"

1 is a discussion of public policy, and must be protected speech except in the most extreme circumstances. 2 is a personal recommendation to commit a crime, and the state has a greater right to regulate such speech. 3 would clearly seem to come close to not being protected at all. Now there is some debate IIUC, as to whether the advice not to hit on the face is A. Intended to hide the crime or B. Intended to avoid shame to the victim. If A, then this really seems like the equivlant of publishing instructions for bombmaking. Even if B, however, I question whether this is still protected speech.

[Whaleboy]

For thinking so? - no
For stating so in a close audience of acquaintances? - no
For stating so to a wide audience? - yes

See now you're creating an Orwellian situation. What that would do is force the view underground, giving it more popularity. Instead of acting upon their own insecurities regarding their control, a government in that situation should keep that speech legal, in any of your said circumstances, but instead aim to counter them.

You force something underground, it's like shaking up a sociological lemonade bottle.

Speech is a form of action already. It is not entirely innocent despite what pro-pure-free-speech seem to believe. Actual violence is harmful, but a call to violence can be even more harmful, if it convinces people to act upon these words. One who publishes violent speeches should be held responsible for such an action.

Ah I suppose you believe that if you ask me to shoot someone, and I do it, that you are guilty as I am? . Unless you can prove a command structure (in which case the issue of responsibility comes into play) it is the person pulling the trigger that is guilty, as hard as that is for people to believe, as we have a tendency to simplify and conspire to enforce that simple view. Fundamentally, there is a world of logical distinctions between the speaker and the actor. You bely the notion of individual interpretation.

[Spiffor]

If I convince you of shooting someone who you didn't want to shot prior, I am guiltier as you.

[Whaleboy]

Please back up that ridiculous assertion.

[Dinner]

Islam is currently a very ****ed up religion. 800 years ago it was Christianity that was ****ed up but luckily the enlightenment and modern liberalism has addressed most of the major cultural problems such as this. The Arab world however seems to be stuck in the dark ages sometimes.

[Dis]

I'd hit it.

[Verres]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Please back up that ridiculous assertion.

English law, Whaleboy. There was a case of it in the 1920's (ish). Craig and Bently iirc - they made a film about it.

EDIT: not craig and bently of course, one received capital punishment and the other was probably a little upset about the whole thing, which meant they werent really in a position to produce a film.

[Az]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Islam is currently a very ****ed up religion. 800 years ago it was Christianity that was ****ed up but luckily the enlightenment and modern liberalism has addressed most of the major cultural problems such as this. The Arab world however seems to be stuck in the dark ages sometimes.

You are an evil crusader! I bet you shoot arab kids all the time, and call the ragheads!

[Dis]

Originally posted by Verres
As crazy as i think this man is, i dont think it should be illegal for him to say things like this. Incitement shouldnt be a crime - its not his fault if people are stupid and impressionable enough to do what he says.

the thing is most of the population are followers. That's just how we are designed. Most people cannot think for themselves, and follow what other people are doing.

Humans are easily influenced. There's a reason why the holocaust happened so easily.