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

[Kuciwalker]

But most countries have laws against inciting people to riot.

Yes, when the inciter is present. Not if the person wrote an editorial in the newspaper that caused the riot.

[DarkCloud]

. 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.

I'd object. He's not saying kill or bomb, he's saying strike back in self-defense. He's just making statements.

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.

Which is wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
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.

Examples? And do you think I support this?

[DarkCloud]

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

Probably true.

Doesn't change my statement though- prosecute them under Slander regulations rather than criminal. It accomplishes the same thing... and keeps the hate above-board instead of hidden and unquantifiable.

Frankly, when the KKK marches, it may gain some interest, but most of the time it just raises hate against itself and its members and humiliates them.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
If you want to throw out meaningless lines, then fine.

But why not question your beliefs.

I agree. Why not listen to what everyone has to say, rather than banning their speech?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
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.

But if both comments result in someone else being violent, then why draw the line at specifically inciting violence?


As for all your comments about games, McDs, etc, the standard caveat applies: Is it reasonable to assume that X would incite violence.

If Joe Idiot says Americans should be killed, but no one listens to Joe Idiot, or is likely to, then there is no need to prosecute him.

[KrazyHorse]

hate-speech laws

[Kuciwalker]

Physiscists

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

But most countries have laws against inciting people to riot.

Yes, when the inciter is present. Not if the person wrote an editorial in the newspaper that caused the riot.

How do you defend your distiction. If both things cause the same result, why is one illegal, but the other is not.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Doesn't change my statement though- prosecute them under Slander regulations rather than criminal.

So you think that slander should be punishable?

[Velociryx]

wow...lots of comments between now and when I last checked in.

I'd answer the question Ting posted to me about laws against those who incite riots, but Walker and Dark Cloud have already said everything I woulda said anyways, so....nothing to add, really.

The problem comes down to one of where to draw the line, and as we all know, if you give the government (any government, no matter how well trusted or well intended) an inch, they'll take a whole lot more.

So we make laws banning hateful speech against any group, religion, race, tribe, church group, fraternal organization, non-profit group, charity, etc., etc., etc., and prolly a whole bunch of others I forgot.

And then some wise and benevolent politician comes along and decides...you know, that's not quite good enough. In order to promote a more just and tolerent society, we should prevent people from speaking out against government policies....after all, that is "hate" of a different sort, yes? And the government should, of course, be granted the same protections as the other, already protected groups....

And it all seems very reasonable.

Each and every time the politicians come back to strengthen, amend, or otherwise add to the laws further and further restricting what you can and can't say, talk about, think, or feel, until one day you wake up and you don't even recognize the nation you live in.

That's how it happens.

One little nefarious bit at a time.

Best not to even start down that road.

Let the hate mongers be hate mongers, and understand that WHEN they spew their foul messages, some weak-minded few WILL think they find wisdom in the words.

Most will write them off as blowhards.

-=Vel=-

[DarkCloud]

Of course- slander is lies.

hate speech is opinion.

---
and drawing the line at 'do you think that anyone would listen to joe idiot' is a terrible thing to do- becuase frankly, if my friend publishes a blog saying 'I really hate Jane" and I go out and kill her- I would have been influenced by HIM- not a big public figure...

However, on that same line- he's not responsible in any way for my actions. He just said he hated Jane, not that he wanted her dead.

[DarkCloud]

As for all your comments about games, McDs, etc, the standard caveat applies: Is it reasonable to assume that X would incite violence.

So let's let the courts decide and waste peoples' time in litigation.

let's make people afraid to say things and instead nurse those feelings inside thesmelves... without solving the problem at all- ignoring it and imagining that everyone is tolerant of others instead of being open to dialogue and trying to convince them that they are wrong- or being open to being able to enact surveillance on them... since when someone says something suspicious, then the government now has a good reason to spy on them and can get a warrant easier- someone who keeps the reasons private will not write anything and then'll go out and kill someone himself... and the govrnment would never be able to stop him since it never knew of his existence.

David Duke (KKK leader- former governor of Louisiana), and others are high profile hate-spewers... yet they'll never act on their statements since they'll be caught almost instantly since they are so high profile and watched- instead they'll convince others to do things... but why should anyone listen to a leader who's too afraid to act? These people honestly lose their credibility the longer they preach without acting. And then they recede into obscurity.

[Velociryx]

Dark Cloud is so completely on it!

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
How do you defend your distiction. If both things cause the same result, why is one illegal, but the other is not.

In one case the person is right there, and the police on the scene need to stop him to stop immediate violence - plus, there is a direct, immediate, intentional link between the inciter and the violence. None of this is true of an editorial.