An experiment in forum perception

[RightyTighty]

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."

It means you couldn't outlaw the political speech of Party B (or a member or supporter) when you were Party A.

 

[Coyote]

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).

How are any criminal violations determined?

Slander and libel cause damage - the bar is actually pretty high for it in order to protect free speech.

 

[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.

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.

Mobs don't make individual decisions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If speech causally links to action, the speaker is liable, yes.

 

[Darkwind]

Bingo.

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).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Really? Where does it say some forms could be limited?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Yes. And they are charged appropriately.

So...if someone convinces another to murder a third party - should he be charged?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Mobs don't make individual decisions.

But the individuals who make up the mob do.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Yes. And they are charged appropriately.

So...if someone convinces another to murder a third party - should he be charged?

Again, the "convincing" is the issue. An individual makes its own decisions.

 

[Darkwind]

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).

How are any criminal violations determined?

Slander and libel cause damage - the bar is actually pretty high for it in order to protect free speech.

Exactly. So the video discusses the limitations of certain groups of people's speech on the basis of free speech zones, hate speech (again, this is the heart of the real issue here) and speech deemed offensive.

Do they get to determine that? Does the public at large? Or are there standards and procedures that must be met in order for one group of people to silence another?

 

[RightyTighty]

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).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

Someone collects kiddy porn off the Internet and doesn't share it (long after the crime was committed by others). What's the harm to anyone, to the child? There is none but it's still a crime. Did the Founders envision that you couldn't outlaw that? Ah, no.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

If you are showing how to rob a bank, you are accessory, kid, no two ways about it.

 

[Coyote]

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).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

I believe even fake child porn (like animations) is illegal. No "rights" are violated. Should it be or not be?

 

[RightyTighty]

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).

How are any criminal violations determined?

Slander and libel cause damage - the bar is actually pretty high for it in order to protect free speech.

Exactly. So the video discusses the limitations of certain groups of people's speech on the basis of free speech zones, hate speech (again, this is the heart of the real issue here) and speech deemed offensive.

Do they get to determine that? Does the public at large? Or are there standards and procedures that must be met in order for one group of people to silence another?

We have those standards and procedures. We call them - judges and courts.

 

[waltky]

Slyhunter wrote: 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?

If it is proven you did so with a reasonable expectation to cause undue alarm which resulted in the consequences.

 

[yiostheoy]

8 minutes long ... that's pretty long. And boring.

Can't you do a shorter experiment ... say 2 minutes ??

I got bored after 30 seconds.

But I could tough it out for 2 minutes. But not 8.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Yes. And they are charged appropriately.

So...if someone convinces another to murder a third party - should he be charged?

Again, the "convincing" is the issue. An individual makes its own decisions.

A jury can make that decision based on the weight of the evidence.

 

[yiostheoy]

What if hate speech drives people to action?

Did you watch the 8 minutes ??

 

[Darkwind]

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).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

I believe even fake child porn (like animations) is illegal. No "rights" are violated. Should it be or not be?

Should you or I be the arbitrators of its illegality? Other than the personal choice to find it distasteful and chose not to look at it? Or do we say, we think this is a crime and then discuss it, debate it, and then get our lawmakers to outlaw it?

Should we, as individuals, take it into our own hand to silence it, violently if necessary? That is the question being posed.

 

[yiostheoy]

Speech that incites violent harm to others...

... should not enjoy free and protected status.

Did you watch the 8 minutes ??