An experiment in forum perception

[Billy_Kinetta]

The people performing the actions are liable for their behavior, not the speaker.

That depends.

If I tell you as a hungry adult to steal a candy bar, am I liable for the theft?

Potentially. Same if you tell me to jump off a bridge (without the bungee cord).

Go jump off a bridge.

I have (in New Zealand).

Without the bungee cord.

 

[Darkwind]

Speech that incites violent harm to others...

... should not enjoy free and protected status.

Why? There is no need to protect popular speech. Who gets to determine which speech incites?

The courts - of course.

The courts get it wrong often. However, what good does it do society if we can limit speech by simply disagreeing with it?

 

[RightyTighty]

Speech that incites violent harm to others...

... should not enjoy free and protected status.

I disagree. People of age are responsible for their own behavior.

People are, but not mobs. They can be criminally incited by just one individual (even if that person takes no actions).

Mobs are comprised of individuals, each responsible for their own behavior.

Not when it's a mob. That's group-think and why we have laws against inciting one.

 

[RightyTighty]

Speech that incites violent harm to others...

... should not enjoy free and protected status.

Why? There is no need to protect popular speech. Who gets to determine which speech incites?

The courts - of course.

The courts get it wrong often. However, what good does it do society if we can limit speech by simply disagreeing with it?

Speech is always limited. We have a society - not anarchy.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Speech that incites violent harm to others...

... should not enjoy free and protected status.

I disagree. People of age are responsible for their own behavior.

People are, but not mobs. They can be criminally incited by just one individual (even if that person takes no actions).

Mobs are comprised of individuals, each responsible for their own behavior.

Not when it's a mob. That's group-think and why we have laws against inciting one.

When has a mob been charged with a crime? Show me.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Speech that incites violent harm to others...

... should not enjoy free and protected status.

Why? There is no need to protect popular speech. Who gets to determine which speech incites?

The courts - of course.

The courts get it wrong often. However, what good does it do society if we can limit speech by simply disagreeing with it?

Speech is always limited. We have a society - not anarchy.

Yes, a society where the federal government cannot legally limit speech.

 

[Darkwind]

Speech that incites violent harm to others...

... should not enjoy free and protected status.

Why? There is no need to protect popular speech. Who gets to determine which speech incites?

The courts - of course.

The courts get it wrong often. However, what good does it do society if we can limit speech by simply disagreeing with it?

Speech is always limited. We have a society - not anarchy.

Did you watch the video?

Speech is not always limited. By your own account, I can silence speech I don't like by just getting a group of like-minded people together and cause trouble and then claim so and so's speech made Me do it.

 

[RightyTighty]

Speech that incites violent harm to others...

... should not enjoy free and protected status.

I disagree. People of age are responsible for their own behavior.

People are, but not mobs. They can be criminally incited by just one individual (even if that person takes no actions).

Mobs are comprised of individuals, each responsible for their own behavior.

Not when it's a mob. That's group-think and why we have laws against inciting one.

When has a mob been charged with a crime? Show me.

We charge a mob as individuals - we also charge (often enough) the person or persons who wound them up.

 

[RightyTighty]

Speech that incites violent harm to others...

... should not enjoy free and protected status.

Why? There is no need to protect popular speech. Who gets to determine which speech incites?

The courts - of course.

The courts get it wrong often. However, what good does it do society if we can limit speech by simply disagreeing with it?

Speech is always limited. We have a society - not anarchy.

Did you watch the video?

Speech is not always limited. By your own account, I can silence speech I don't like by just getting a group of like-minded people together and cause trouble and then claim so and so's speech made Me do it.

Why would I watch the video? I support free speech - period.

 

[Coyote]

What if hate speech drives people to action?

The people performing the actions are liable for their behavior, not the speaker.

Speech that incites violent harm to others...

... should not enjoy free and protected status.

I disagree. People of age are responsible for their own behavior.

Of course they are.

And so are the ones who incite them in come cases.

 

[RightyTighty]

Speech that incites violent harm to others...

... should not enjoy free and protected status.

Why? There is no need to protect popular speech. Who gets to determine which speech incites?

The courts - of course.

The courts get it wrong often. However, what good does it do society if we can limit speech by simply disagreeing with it?

Speech is always limited. We have a society - not anarchy.

Yes, a society where the federal government cannot legally limit speech.

The hell it can't. There are all kinds of limits, starting with slander and libel.

 

[Darkwind]

Why? There is no need to protect popular speech. Who gets to determine which speech incites?

The courts - of course.

The courts get it wrong often. However, what good does it do society if we can limit speech by simply disagreeing with it?

Speech is always limited. We have a society - not anarchy.

Did you watch the video?

Speech is not always limited. By your own account, I can silence speech I don't like by just getting a group of like-minded people together and cause trouble and then claim so and so's speech made Me do it.

Why would I watch the video? I support free speech - period.

You just said you didn't. Make up your mind.

 

[RightyTighty]

The courts - of course.

The courts get it wrong often. However, what good does it do society if we can limit speech by simply disagreeing with it?

Speech is always limited. We have a society - not anarchy.

Did you watch the video?

Speech is not always limited. By your own account, I can silence speech I don't like by just getting a group of like-minded people together and cause trouble and then claim so and so's speech made Me do it.

Why would I watch the video? I support free speech - period.

You just said you didn't. Make up your mind.

I support free speech, it's also limited. Are you unable to keep two thoughts in your head at the same time?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I disagree. People of age are responsible for their own behavior.

People are, but not mobs. They can be criminally incited by just one individual (even if that person takes no actions).

Mobs are comprised of individuals, each responsible for their own behavior.

Not when it's a mob. That's group-think and why we have laws against inciting one.

When has a mob been charged with a crime? Show me.

We charge a mob as individuals

Bingo.

we also charge (often enough) the person or persons who wound them up.

Per the 1st, illegal. Read the damned thing. Don't call upon precedent or case law. Neither changes the Constitution.

 

[Coyote]

Speech that incites violent harm to others...

... should not enjoy free and protected status.

I disagree. People of age are responsible for their own behavior.

People are, but not mobs. They can be criminally incited by just one individual (even if that person takes no actions).

Mobs are comprised of individuals, each responsible for their own behavior.

Actually....in a biological sense...mobs are an interesting phenomenum. They take on a life of their own and drive people to act in ways they never would as individuals. Kind of like dog packs.

But you are right - individuals are responsible for their own behavior - and that would include the individuals doing the inciting in some cases.

 

[waltky]

Billy K. wrote: Mobs are comprised of individuals, each responsible for their own behavior.

Sounds good in theory...

... rarely works out that way in practice, though.

When has a mob been charged with a crime? Show me.

Remember the Neuremburg Trials?

If I tell you as a hungry adult to steal a candy bar, am I liable for the theft?

Yes, under conspiracy laws.

 

[Darkwind]

The courts get it wrong often. However, what good does it do society if we can limit speech by simply disagreeing with it?

Speech is always limited. We have a society - not anarchy.

Did you watch the video?

Speech is not always limited. By your own account, I can silence speech I don't like by just getting a group of like-minded people together and cause trouble and then claim so and so's speech made Me do it.

Why would I watch the video? I support free speech - period.

You just said you didn't. Make up your mind.

I support free speech, it's also limited. Are you unable to keep two thoughts in your head at the same time?

If you're going to get insulting, I'll ask a mod to remove you.

Speech is limited by who? Who determines speech limitations? You said the Courts, but the courts can only rule on limitations based upon existing laws.

Who gets to write which speech is hate speech and which speech is not? Whose standard do we use?

Either you believe that the First Amendment protects unpopular speech or you don't.

 

[Coyote]

Speech that incites violent harm to others...

... should not enjoy free and protected status.

Why? There is no need to protect popular speech. Who gets to determine which speech incites?

The courts - of course.

The courts get it wrong often. However, what good does it do society if we can limit speech by simply disagreeing with it?

Speech is always limited. We have a society - not anarchy.

Yes, a society where the federal government cannot legally limit speech.

None of our rights are unlimited, including free speech. To use an overused example you can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.

 

[Darkwind]

Speech that incites violent harm to others...

... should not enjoy free and protected status.

I disagree. People of age are responsible for their own behavior.

People are, but not mobs. They can be criminally incited by just one individual (even if that person takes no actions).

Mobs are comprised of individuals, each responsible for their own behavior.

Actually....in a biological sense...mobs are an interesting phenomenum. They take on a life of their own and drive people to act in ways they never would as individuals. Kind of like dog packs.

But you are right - individuals are responsible for their own behavior - and that would include the individuals doing the inciting in some cases.

So, what speech is considered incitement?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why? There is no need to protect popular speech. Who gets to determine which speech incites?

The courts - of course.

The courts get it wrong often. However, what good does it do society if we can limit speech by simply disagreeing with it?

Speech is always limited. We have a society - not anarchy.

Yes, a society where the federal government cannot legally limit speech.

The hell it can't. There are all kinds of limits, starting with slander and libel.

That is not limiting speech. That is punishing slander and liable, which are criminal behavior.