Nah, don't think I will work there, foock that.

I don't even work here... I just make all my money on eBay.

(August 22, 2011 at 10:39 am)Napoleon Wrote: Depends if it's in relation to a crime really, if you can see that they are conspiring to commit an act and that they are a threat to other people due to what they say then why should that person be able to get away with it?

If you can prove that they were conspiring to commit a crime, and not just saying it, then by all means arrest them. However whilst someone could (and should) be investigated for saying "I want to kill everyone", saying it should not be grounds for arresting them. Freedom of speech is exactly that; the freedom to say anything you want.

In the rioting case, two people were sentenced to 4 year jail terms for encouraging people to riot in a specific area. Not only did nobody riot in that area, but if they had done, you'd be hard pushed to prove any link between the encouragement and the rioting. I don't think people should be arrested or sentenced for such reasons; if you aren't committing (or planning to commit) a crime yourself, you shouldn't be part of an investigation.

(August 22, 2011 at 10:43 am)Jaysyn Wrote: So you think Dennis Markuze shouldn't have been arrested then? After all, "them's just words", right?

He should be investigated, since I believe that he is mentally unstable and should be receiving medical help. I don't think he should go to jail for what he's said though. If it can be proved that he was actively planning to attack atheists, then he should be arrested for conspiring to commit and unlawful act, but that's as far as it goes.

To all of us posting in this thread, there seems to be a general feeling of: Use common sense when deciding who is and who is not crossing the line into threatening behavior and if you're going to error, error on the side of freedom of speech - which of course I agree with. Unfortunately, and I can't speak for british law, but the US government has absolutely no common sense. None.

Well because of this obvious fact, they have to draw hard fast lines that are all too often non-negotiable ... and that is my fear. That in order to safeguard the public, freedom of speech takes hit after hit until it's more of a memory than a right.

Thats what happened after 9/11.

The easiest way to eradicate any freedom is to scare the shit out of people until they willingly surrender it for "their own good". Don't have to fire a single shot. The boogeyman doesn't even have to be real.

"Ways to make white people feel safe" as George Carlin called it.

(August 22, 2011 at 10:43 am)Jaysyn Wrote: So you think Dennis Markuze shouldn't have been arrested then? After all, "them's just words", right?

Correct.

Use of 'just' being irrelevant. Them's words.

(August 22, 2011 at 11:46 am)Tiberius Wrote: He should be investigated, since I believe that he is mentally unstable and should be receiving medical help. I don't think he should go to jail for what he's said though. If it can be proved that he was actively planning to attack atheists, then he should be arrested for conspiring to commit and unlawful act, but that's as far as it goes.

Well at least you're consistent. By the by, death threats are considered a form of assault here in the states, & probably in Canada as well, so he was pretty clearly breaking the law.

Do you think that people should be allowed to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater or a packed town hall as well?

How about shouting bomb on a plane?

(August 22, 2011 at 3:32 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: Well at least you're consistent. By the by, death threats are considered a form of assault here in the states, & probably in Canada as well, so he was pretty clearly breaking the law.

I have no doubt he was breaking the law; I just disagree with the law he's broken.

Quote:Do you think that people should be allowed to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater or a packed town hall as well?

Yup. However I think that instigating a mass panic for no reason should be a crime, as long as you can prove intent. A kid might shout "FIRE" without realizing what the outcome might be, or a crazy person could do the same. I don't think they should be prosecuted.

What you must realise in regard to freedom of speech is that it centers around just that; the freedom to say things. I don't think there are any countries in the world that have banned people from shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater; however they have created crimes which deal with the outcomes of saying it.

This is the difference between limiting the actual freedoms of speech, and criminalizing the outcomes of it. Looking at the "FIRE!" example again, let me compare the two:

1) Under a system which limits the freedom of speech, shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded building / room without their being any actual fire would be an arrestable offense in itself, even if nobody reacted to it.

2) Under a system which criminalizes the outcomes of freedom of speech, shouting "FIRE!" itself would not be a crime, but the person may still be arrested based on the outcomes of the event. For instance, if it causes a mass panic, then an arrest could be made; if not, then no action should be taken.

It's an important difference.

(August 22, 2011 at 3:37 pm)Napoleon Wrote: How about shouting bomb on a plane?

See above.