An experiment in forum perception

[RightyTighty]

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.

Unless they can prove that the speaker exercised some Svengali-like influence over the perpetrator, the perpetrator is by all common sense the guilty party.

Mobs are easy to wind up and hard to unwind (which is why we have these sorts of laws in the first place).

 

[Darkwind]

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?

I cringe to say anything positive on this subject, but if no actual human is harmed, it should not be. Then you are reaching into the art category, and though you may be disgusted by particular art, there is no harm to actual persons, other than possibly providing impetus to a perverted thought pattern.

That's also where it gets really dicey in the free speech area. Another example is odious groups like NAMBLA - as long as they don't act on what they promote, they have every right to express their views. Same with KKK, Westboro Baptists etc.

But if they stand on a street corner, in a mob situation and incite them to violence - that's a different story.

So, we have mobs of students inciting violence against University authority, teacher authority, and individual rights to speech and thought. What should be done about it?

How have we come to this place where speech is to be limited simply by being offended by someone else's views?

 

[Darkwind]

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?

I cringe to say anything positive on this subject, but if no actual human is harmed, it should not be. Then you are reaching into the art category, and though you may be disgusted by particular art, there is no harm to actual persons, other than possibly providing impetus to a perverted thought pattern.

I happen to agree. There are cultures that would depict what we deem children in sexual situations and consider it the norm; however that would not constitute pornography. The point though is that we don't allow mobs to determine who has free speech and who does not. We do not allow mobs or groups of individuals to determine the moral standard of what speech constitutes hate speech. We do not deem 'offense' as hate speech.

I actually agree until it crosses the line into inciting violence.

I don't agree with "hate speech" laws other than that for exactly that reason - who determines it? Mob rule.

This is the essence of the video.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What if hate speech drives people to action?

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

Wrong.

Inciting violence IS A CRIME

 

[RightyTighty]

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?

I cringe to say anything positive on this subject, but if no actual human is harmed, it should not be. Then you are reaching into the art category, and though you may be disgusted by particular art, there is no harm to actual persons, other than possibly providing impetus to a perverted thought pattern.

Possession of child porn is harmful.

Prove it? So far - no one can. Can't prove good old regular porn is either - but not for lack of trying.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Great video op. Sending it to my kids

 

[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.

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.

But why would some one commit so strongly to an ideology that they would want to try to prevent others from speaking against it?

Pick a Pope (almost any will do) and check out their thoughts. The gateway to Hell (if you go against the Church).

Both secular and religious ideologies can be dangerous but why do some people succumb so strongly to them and others don't?

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Unless they can prove that the speaker exercised some Svengali-like influence over the perpetrator, the perpetrator is by all common sense the guilty party.

I think the issue is intent, whether the speaker intended to influence the perpetrator to commit the crime.

 

[RightyTighty]

How have we come to this place where speech is to be limited simply by being offended by someone else's views?

Are you confusing laws with PC or peer pressure? Just because you'd now better be gay (and a good friend of his) before yelling out Hey, faggot doesn't mean it's against the law. or a ban on your free speech.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Unless they can prove that the speaker exercised some Svengali-like influence over the perpetrator, the perpetrator is by all common sense the guilty party.

I think the issue is intent, whether the speaker intended to influence the perpetrator to commit the crime.

So what? People are responsible for themselves.

 

[HenryBHough]

If words intended to piss someone off don't accomplish their goal.....aw shit, then there's still stick and stones before escalating to automatic weapons.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Unless they can prove that the speaker exercised some Svengali-like influence over the perpetrator, the perpetrator is by all common sense the guilty party.

I think the issue is intent, whether the speaker intended to influence the perpetrator to commit the crime.

So what? People are responsible for themselves.

Of course the perpetrator is still guilty of the crime but if the speaker intended to influence him to commit the crime, he should be punished, too.

 

[RightyTighty]

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.

But why would some one commit so strongly to an ideology that they would want to try to prevent others from speaking against it?

Pick a Pope (almost any will do) and check out their thoughts. The gateway to Hell (if you go against the Church).

Both secular and religious ideologies can be dangerous but why do some people succumb so strongly to them and others don't?

Tiny minds crave certainty (and that's what ideologies offer) as well as group identity. Thinking for yourself (and being all alone) is far too hard for most.

As well as being dangerous that's why shunning and banishment are - punishments.

 

[RightyTighty]

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.

Unless they can prove that the speaker exercised some Svengali-like influence over the perpetrator, the perpetrator is by all common sense the guilty party.

I think the issue is intent, whether the speaker intended to influence the perpetrator to commit the crime.

So what? People are responsible for themselves.

And others (in the right circumstances).

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What if hate speech drives people to action?

That is their problem.

 

[OKTexas]

What if hate speech drives people to action?

Then weak minded people should learn self control. Each individual is responsible for their actions.

.

 

[IsaacNewton]

If speech cannot be a criminal act then Charles Manson is in prison for speaking. He told others to murder and they murdered. He didn't commit the crimes himself.

It isn't a black and white issue. The most common note on free speech is the one where you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. If someone running for president is at one of his rallies and incites his already angry vociferous crowd to beat people they don't like in the audience and they do it does this not cross the line? Inciting to riot is a crime, but it is only speech.

 

[RightyTighty]

What if hate speech drives people to action?

That is their problem.

A stupid person might think that (but it isn't true).

 

[RightyTighty]

What if hate speech drives people to action?

Then weak minded people should learn self control. Each individual is responsible for their actions.

.

Again - dogma, not the real world.

 

[OKTexas]

What if hate speech drives people to action?

Then weak minded people should learn self control. Each individual is responsible for their actions.

.

Again - dogma, not the real world.

Do tell, what world do you live in?

.