The judicial system is racist, and its the Jews' fault

[DarkCloud]

and by the way, I just looked this up- the definition of murder is to "kill another person unlawfully..."

it's a changing definition- in essence your person could be accused of murder if it is not legal for him to kill an intruder or someone threatening him with death.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Why should he be allowed to spew his racist hatred?

Why not?

Why should communists be allowed to spew class hatred?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by BeBro
How can I become a Jew? I want to be in control of govs as well

Well, first you have to *snip*

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Consider an Islamic cleric who preaches day after day that the West is evil, that the United States is Satan, etc.

If the cleric never advocates violences, but simply talks about how the West is out to destroy Islam, etc, should the cleric be allowed to continue?

Yes.

[Az]

Az
1.) well you're certainly a killer in that case, maybe not a murderer- but a killer nonetheless.
2.) Blast the guy on Slander then if what he's saying are lies- don't knock him down on 'hate-speech' If he's stating what he knows or can reasonably be expected to know are facts- then what's the problem?

AFAIK, Slander isn't a part of the criminal code, but of the civil one.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

Yes. The government can watch what he is doing and can monitor his contacts and his associations. Until he actually acts on what he says, he's immune.

So if thousands of people listen to the cleric, and dozens of people begin to bomb American targets, and say that they were inspired by the cleric, even though the cleric never once advocated violence, that's okay?

Coulter goes around calling liberals traitors. If someone reads her books and then goes out and kills some Democrats, is she completely blame free?

Why should her freedom of speech be protected when it causes others to murder?

Shi H draws the line at specifically inciting violence, but why not draw the line at comments that are likely to (meaning the standard legal caveat that a reasonable person would conclude) incite violence.

Or put another way, does a society benefit from people spewing hate?

[Kuciwalker]

So if thousands of people listen to the cleric, and dozens of people begin to bomb American targets, and say that they were inspired by the cleric, even though the cleric never once advocated violence, that's okay?

Banning communists

What if someone performs an act of revolutionary violence?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Why not?

Why should communists be allowed to spew class hatred?

That's a good question. Would you say that a communist should be allowed to incite hatred on the basis of class? And if someone acted on that hatred, would you only convict the murderer or the person pulling the strings behind the scenes?

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, and the former.

[Tingkai]

Why?

[Velociryx]

Primarily because there is a broad-based recognition that each person is responsible for his or her own ACTIONS.

I can't be arrested for mentioning here that I think America would be a better place if all the politicians died tomorrow.

If I ACT to make that happen, however, different story, with different consequences.

The notion that I may or may not have reached these conclusions fully on my own (as opposed to being spoon-fed them by some hate-spewing anti-polltical figure), does not even enter into the equation.

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Why?

Because I'm not a fascist?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Primarily because there is a broad-based recognition that each person is responsible for his or her own ACTIONS.

But most countries have laws against inciting people to riot. If a cleric says Americans are trying to destroy us so we must strike back in self-defence, and if someone else acts on the cleric's words, then the cleric could be arrested.

I take it you object to such a law.

And what about slander. By your definitions, slander is acceptable.

Edit: And you can't be arrested in Canada for thinking that politicians should be killed.

But you can be arrested in the US under the USA Patriot Act for saying that terrorism is justified and the right thing to do.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Because I'm not a fascist?

If you want to throw out meaningless lines, then fine.

But why not question your beliefs.

[DarkCloud]

So if thousands of people listen to the cleric, and dozens of people begin to bomb American targets, and say that they were inspired by the cleric, even though the cleric never once advocated violence, that's okay?

Yes, because people are responsible for their own actions- they can do whatever they decide- they have many influences acting on their actions... would you say prosecute everyone that that person interacted with? Maybe his parents were racists- obviously they should be incarcerated- oh and he visited a message board on the internet where one poster once stated "I hate __GROUP___" so that person should be hunted down too because he contribuited to the action.

Also, of course we all know that we should be able to sue mcdonalds for employing a person who was rude to me yesterday, because OBVIOUSLY their poor training program encourages racist behavior against Norwegians- I mean, like Woah- it's so OBVIOUS.

And once again- so of course Bush isn't guilty of hate speech when he speaks against 'iraq, iran, north korea' and insults their leaders? And when he invades nations? He 'hates "evil"... he hates "evil people" just like these clerics 'hate' evil americans.

Coulter goes around calling liberals traitors. If someone reads her books and then goes out and kills some Democrats, is she completely blame free?

Yes. Of course. She's just saying things.

Why should her freedom of speech be protected when it causes others to murder?

Because of the reasons I display above. Freedom of Speech must allow people to express themselves. What criteria defines 'causing others to murder'? How can you prove that someone killed another ONLY BECAUSE OF ONE THING HE HEARD?

Shi H draws the line at specifically inciting violence, but why not draw the line at comments that are likely to (meaning the standard legal caveat that a reasonable person would conclude) incite violence.

What would call specificially inciting violence?
"...You should kill americans" would be prosecutable under what I and I think that most current laws suggest.
"...You should hate americans" would not be... and I don't see how you could argue that it specifically incites violence.

Or put another way, does a society benefit from people spewing hate?

Free and open dialogue in the public sphere.
A lack of fear to express oneself.

*******
Also Under your logic, it's completely right for people to sue manufactuerers of games because their games 'promote hate'... for example- in Postal, you can kill people- well- that's hate-speech right there, it's encouraging people to kill... and Quake- d-mnit quake definately caused Columbine- there certainly wasn't any other reason that those kids wanted to shoot up their classmates.

Also added to Vel's statement above- the government CAN, and I agree that it can- go after people if they state: "I am going to kill ____PERSON___ because of what he said." and seem as though they might actually carry it through- that, my friends is a clear and present threat against a specific person, endangering him... but to merely say "I hate __PERSON___ or __GROUP___ and I recommend that you don't give them jobs, because of what they do, etc." THATS just free speech- it's a statement and a recommendation, not an action or promised action.