An experiment in forum perception

[RightyTighty]

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.

The Founders never meant the 1st Amendment to mean no forms of speech could be limited.

 

[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.

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.

But you can. It is up to the state to prove your speech caused harm. If I stand in a theater and scream fire and no one does anything and no one is harmed, then have I broken a law?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

The Founders never meant the 1st Amendment to mean no forms of speech could be limited.

However, the founders did intend for political speech to be absolutely protected.

So, what in the video was wrong?

 

[toomuchtime_]

The discussion will center around free speech vs hate speech.

Here is the impetus for the discussion. I will not lead up to the discussion with My thoughts because this is an experiment on YOUR thoughts.



Go....

If you want free speech, you have to tolerate all speech including what you might consider hate speech. The only limitation I would impose is impinging on some one else's right to free speech by shouting him down or otherwise preventing people from hearing him. Of course, with rights come responsibility so if you incite some one to commit a crime, you should be charge as an accessory to that crime if an ordinarily prudent person would believe you speech was intended to incite that crime; in other words, if there is a doubt, send it to a jury.

 

[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.

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.

That is limiting what one can say (meaning limiting free speech). Fighting words, obscenity, and inciting a riot are also crimes. So was blaspheme, once, and profanity in public (even now).

 

[Coyote]

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.

That's where it gets kind of dicey - the grey area.

When hate speech incites violence - then it is no longer protected.

Other than that - I support protecting unpopular speech - however unpalatable. As you say - who's standard do you use?

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

But you can. It is up to the state to prove your speech caused harm. If I stand in a theater and scream fire and no one does anything and no one is harmed, then have I broken a law?

If I stand in the middle of a movie theater and yell "Allah Akbar" and 15 people get stomped on as folks run out of the theater am I responsible?

 

[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.

So, what speech is considered incitement?

The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence

 

[RightyTighty]

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.

The Founders never meant the 1st Amendment to mean no forms of speech could be limited.

However, the founders did intend for political speech to be absolutely protected.

So, what in the video was wrong?

Ask someone who watched it. And their concern was politics - not kiddy porn.

 

[Darkwind]

The discussion will center around free speech vs hate speech.

Here is the impetus for the discussion. I will not lead up to the discussion with My thoughts because this is an experiment on YOUR thoughts.



Go....

If you want free speech, you have to tolerate all speech including what you might consider hate speech. The only limitation I would impose is impinging on some one else's right to free speech by shouting him down or otherwise preventing people from hearing him. Of course, with rights come responsibility so if you incite some one to commit a crime, you should be charge as an accessory to that crime if an ordinarily prudent person would believe you speech was intended to incite that crime; in other words, if there is a doubt, send it to a jury.

Yes. So, rioting to prevent speech would be wrong. Shouting down a speaker would be wrong. So, the video examines the motives on why people would want to limit a persons speech the tactics they use to go about it.

 

[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.

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.

Why?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Yes it IS limiting free speech. It's criminalizing certain types of free speech.

 

[RightyTighty]

If I stand in the middle of a movie theater and yell "Allah Akbar" and 15 people get stomped on as folks run out of the theater am I responsible?

Yes.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

The Founders never meant the 1st Amendment to mean no forms of speech could be limited.

However, the founders did intend for political speech to be absolutely protected.

So, what in the video was wrong?

Ask someone who watched it. And their concern was politics - not kiddy porn.

There is no kiddy porn in the video I posted.

 

[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.

Why?

Because they are responsible for their actions if their intent was to incite. Why are they exempt from responsibility?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What does "Congress shall make no law ..." mean?

Couple that with "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[RightyTighty]

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.

The Founders never meant the 1st Amendment to mean no forms of speech could be limited.

However, the founders did intend for political speech to be absolutely protected.

So, what in the video was wrong?

Ask someone who watched it. And their concern was politics - not kiddy porn.

There is no kiddy porn in the video I posted.

Good. It's not protected free speech (even to just collect it).

 

[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.

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.

Yes it IS limiting free speech. It's criminalizing certain types of free speech.

So, who determined what kind of criminal speech liable and slander was? Was it the people who were slandered? The people who slandered someone else? How did it come about that slander and liable were determined to be a criminal act (in fact, they are a civil violation I think).

 

[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.

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.

Why?

Because they are responsible for their actions if their intent was to incite. Why are they exempt from responsibility?

Because the individual makes its own decision whether or not to act upon an idea.

 

[waltky]

Darkwind wrote: So, what speech is considered incitement?

Speech that advocates doing harm to others.

DW: But you can. It is up to the state to prove your speech caused harm. If I stand in a theater and scream fire and no one does anything and no one is harmed, then have I broken a law?

Yes, your action shows an intent to do harm w/o regard to others.

DW: So, who determined what kind of criminal speech liable and slander was? Was it the people who were slandered? The people who slandered someone else?

Legislators who are elected representatives of the people...

... wanting to prevent financial or social harm to targets of the ill-intended speech.