Sure, it will probably fail, but we still have to try.  The reason that incitement isn't protected speech is that the predictable terminus is the violation of some persons (or whole group of peoples) rights. Same reason that yelling fire in a theater isn't protected speech.

---

(March 24, 2019 at 11:00 am)Yonadav Wrote:

(March 24, 2019 at 10:49 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: You could always find someone to try and make that case, Yon, see if it sticks.  Maybe call the ACLU, they have a history of taking things like that up if they think it has merit.

In the meantime, I'll just remind you that incitement isn't protected speech....so no ones advocating the censorship of free speech.  Carry on with the grift.

Here's a libtard getting arrested for violence. My understanding is that they were actually a bit surprised by their arrest because of how right they thought that they were. I watched it and wondered if it was you.

Do you want me to pretend that I watched the link?  People get arrested...................... and? If you do violent shit you end up getting pinched. I guess that;s just something that people have to consider before engaging in violence...but...does that have something to do with the grift?

The shouting fire in a theater thing is soooo misrepresented by so many. The reason that you can't shout fire in a theater has nothing to do with free speech. You can't shout fire in a theater for EXACTLY the same reason that you can't pull the fire alarm in that same theater. Shouting fire isn't speech. It's sounding the fire alarm. People who aren't stupid might notice that it isn't legal to 'shout' fire, but it is legal to say fire. Am I prohibited from saying the word 'fire' in a theater? Fuck no. It is shouting it that isn't legal. It has nothing to do with free speech.

When you reference the fire alarm meme in discussions about free speech, you don't sound intelligent. You sound stupid as fuck. Sure, you might see it brought up by a pundit on television, but that's only because the pundit knows their viewers are dumb as fuck.

Incitement isn't free speech either, for the same reasons. If I'm stupid as fuck..then okay, but I'm stupid as fuck and still grasp that.

Next?

(March 24, 2019 at 11:22 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Sure, it will probably fail, but we still have to try.  The reason that incitement isn't protected speech is that the predictable terminus is the violation of some persons (or whole group of peoples) rights.  Same reason that yelling fire in a theater isn't protected speech.

---

(March 24, 2019 at 11:00 am)Yonadav Wrote: Here's a libtard getting arrested for violence. My understanding is that they were actually a bit surprised by their arrest because of how right they thought that they were. I watched it and wondered if it was you.

Do you want me to pretend that I watched the link?  People get arrested...................... and?  If you do violent shit you end up getting pinched.  I guess that;s just something that people have to consider before engaging in violence...but...does that have something to do with the grift?

The trouble with incitement not being protected speech is that banning it curtails (or eliminates) not only the rights of the person promulgating that speech, but it also curtails or eliminates my right - and the rights of tens of thousands of other people -  to be exposed that speech.

Boru

(March 24, 2019 at 12:19 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The trouble with incitement not being protected speech is that banning it curtails (or eliminates) not only the rights of the person promulgating that speech, but it also curtails or eliminates my right - and the rights of tens of thousands of other people -  to be exposed that speech.

Boru

It doesn't.  A person is free to say every shitting thing that crosses their mind so long as they don;t cross the line into incitement of violence.  It's very...very easy not to run afoul of the incitement exception.  We don't see many charges on account of it. You have to want to cross that line, then actually cross it. As we were discussing before, three out of those four things you mentioned...themselves a vanishingly small portion of all things that may be said, are protected. That one thing, of all possible things (including all things not described by any of the other three), isn't.

Not that it would matter..because if there were some instance in which you did have some right to one thing and this right conflicted with some other right that another person had, the state decides on a compelling interest. Which, of two competing rights, by needs they must protect first. In the case of incitement, it;s been decided that even if a person did have a right to incite violence, which we don't...that the other persons right not to be a victim of that incited violence would be more compelling. Mostly because you have no rights if you are dead. The state will have failed it's fundamental duty and cannot, at this point, enforce or protect any other law or right on your behalf.

A person will be exposed to such speech if they want to be, or even if they don't..even if there is no right to incitement, which there isn't.

As I mentioned at the start, I understand the initial reaction. It's sticky, it's a bad look, and absolutism doesn;t gel with it, but what about absolutism in the face of a persons right to protection from violence? These two competing righs cannot be simultaneously upheld in any absolutists sense...and, again IDK about NZ..but here in the states our rights were never conceived of as absolute or in a vacuum of circumstance of interest. This isn't a bug, it's a feature.

(March 24, 2019 at 11:55 am)Sal Wrote:

(March 24, 2019 at 11:22 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Sure, it will probably fail, but we still have to try.  The reason that incitement isn't protected speech is that the predictable terminus is the violation of some persons (or whole group of peoples) rights.  Same reason that yelling fire in a theater isn't protected speech.

---

Do you want me to pretend that I watched the link?  People get arrested...................... and?  If you do violent shit you end up getting pinched.  I guess that;s just something that people have to consider before engaging in violence...but...does that have something to do with the grift?

That was an interesting video. Of course, he said some things that I don't agree with, what with me being a little bit religious and Hitchens being utterly adversarial toward religion. But I have no problem with listening to him and noting the validity of many of the points that he makes. But then, I'm not a libtard who can't possibly listen to a single word of anything that I might disagree with. I leave that sort of mindlessness to folks like Gae.

You're determined to reduce yourself to a running joke, it seems.  Hitchens would be about the worst place to launch into your next shitpost about me.  Not much of a dawkins or harris guy, never read any of their shit.  Hitchens, otoh, well....historically vocal on the boards about many points he's raised.

Are you done grifting, now..just beating your dick to fantasies of me?

Sometimes, there simply are no good choices; Only those decisions that cause the least harm.
The government made the right call, IMO. 

If it's clear that the manifesto's sole or primary intention was to incite unlawful violence/terrorist acts against NZ's Muslim population, then I believe that access to it should be strictly limited.

I don't regard protecting private citizens' right to gawk at the manifesto as a means of satisfying their morbid curiosity to be MORE important than protecting maligned ethnic groups from potential copycat crimes/mass murder.

Yup, standard example of an exclusively sub-optimal range. It'd be nice if we could serve both interests simultaneously (I guess?)...but mere reality shows us that this is not actually possible...leading to a mountain of practical difficulties that the grifters gleefully latch on to in order to cry into their cups for the poor oppressed white separatist "literature".