(November 3, 2014 at 9:25 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 3, 2014 at 8:41 pm)Chas Wrote: It's not? Then the ones they have actually beheaded weren't murdered?

It is incitement to violence which is a criminal act.

Not according to the US Supreme Court.

If you are asserting that the beheadings happened because of those signs, I'd like to see your evidence. Otherwise, Brandenburg v Ohio pretty much renders your point nugatory.

eta: Minimalist got there first, credit where credit is due.

The beheadings in the Middle East happened because people there incite that behavior there.

We have mow had radicalized Muslims murder people in the U.K. and Canada, incited by that kind of speech. SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction.

So, I'm sticking with "it's criminal behavior". And I predict this will be argued in court in the not too distant future.

(November 3, 2014 at 10:09 pm)Chas Wrote: The beheadings in the Middle East happened because people there incite that behavior there.

I disagree. The beheadings there, perpetrated upon Western journalists, happen because they have shock value in the Western media. Now, if you have evidence that public demonstrations replete with signs are what are inciting those beheadings, I'm all ears.

But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those atrocities are a result of extremists attempting to shock and dismay their enemy.

(November 3, 2014 at 10:09 pm)Chas Wrote: We have mow had radicalized Muslims murder people in the U.K. and Canada, incited by that kind of speech. SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction.

First sentence needs sourcing. Second sentence is unnecessary.

(November 3, 2014 at 10:09 pm)Chas Wrote: So, I'm sticking with "it's criminal behavior". And I predict this will be argued in court in the not too distant future.

You may think it's criminal speech. I think it's misguided speech. And I think SCOTUS will uphold precedent if it gets that far.

Speaking of which, are there any relevant cases in the US court system you know of?

(November 3, 2014 at 10:29 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 3, 2014 at 10:09 pm)Chas Wrote: The beheadings in the Middle East happened because people there incite that behavior there.

I disagree. The beheadings there, perpetrated upon Western journalists, happen because they have shock value in the Western media. Now, if you have evidence that public demonstrations replete with signs are what are inciting those beheadings, I'm all ears.

But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those atrocities are a result of extremists attempting to shock and dismay their enemy.

(November 3, 2014 at 10:09 pm)Chas Wrote: We have mow had radicalized Muslims murder people in the U.K. and Canada, incited by that kind of speech. SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction.

First sentence needs sourcing. Second sentence is unnecessary.

(November 3, 2014 at 10:09 pm)Chas Wrote: So, I'm sticking with "it's criminal behavior". And I predict this will be argued in court in the not too distant future.

You may think it's criminal speech. I think it's misguided speech. And I think SCOTUS will uphold precedent if it gets that far.

Speaking of which, are there any relevant cases in the US court system you know of?

Did you notice the murders were in the U.K. and Canada? And SCOTUS necessarily does not have jurisdiction. So why are you asking about the U.S. court system?

(November 3, 2014 at 10:33 pm)Chas Wrote: Did you notice the murders were in the U.K. and Canada?

Did you connect those murders to those signs? I must have missed that part.

(November 3, 2014 at 10:33 pm)Chas Wrote: And SCOTUS necessarily does not have jurisdiction. So why are you asking about the U.S. court system?

Because, you know, I'm an American. That is my frame of reference, and the area of my concern. I already know that both the EU and Canada have laws restricting speech depending on content. I'm anxious that such laws don't find their way here.

My opinion is that censorship is not the best way to address hateful, bigoted, or inciteful speech. I think the best way to deal with those problems is insightful speech.

You mileage appears to vary.

(November 3, 2014 at 7:47 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: "Behead those who insult Islam" is not threatening murder. It is an obnoxious opinion, no doubt. Do we have any examples of the signs those marchers held inciting any murders? If so, prosecute the sign-holders.

If not, don't.

I don't know why you guys have so much difficulty understanding simple prose. If some Muslim extremists want to hold aloft a sign which proclaims ALLAH WILL DAMN YOU TO THE LOWEST HELL FOR INSULTING ISLAM, I don't give a flying fuck. For all I care they can parade from one end of Canada and back again, approx 15,000 km. However, once they indicate that they want to be Allah's little helpers BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM, that is uttering death threats whether anyone acts immediately upon it or not, and it should be punished. How do you know that an attack a year later was not inspired by it.

In much of the civilized world (Canada, India, Australia, France, Poland, Germany, etc.) there are hate speech laws. But then some of us have doubts if the USA is part of the civilized world.

(November 4, 2014 at 7:14 am)xpastor Wrote: I don't know why you guys have so much difficulty understanding simple prose.

And I don't know why you can't make your point without personal attacks.

(November 4, 2014 at 7:14 am)xpastor Wrote: If some Muslim extremists want to hold aloft a sign which proclaims ALLAH WILL DAMN YOU TO THE LOWEST HELL FOR INSULTING ISLAM, I don't give a flying fuck. For all I care they can parade from one end of Canada and back again, approx 15,000 km. However, once they indicate that they want to be Allah's little helpers BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM, that is uttering death threats whether anyone acts immediately upon it or not, and it should be punished. How do you know that an attack a year later was not inspired by it.

Or, conversely, how do you know that your government will fairly apply any speech laws?

Also, I'd suggest you learn the difference between "threat" and "advocacy". To put it quickly, a threat indicates the personal intent to carry out a deleterious action (see the first denotation in that link), while advocacy merely argues for something. Now, you and I both agree that advocating beheading is obnoxious. But claiming it to be a "threat" is abusing the definition.

(November 4, 2014 at 7:14 am)xpastor Wrote: In much of the civilized world (Canada, India, Australia, France, Poland, Germany, etc.) there are hate speech laws. But then some of us have doubts if the USA is part of the civilized world.

Hey, that condescension fits you nicely. It's a pity you cannot disagree amicably.

I see no need to start changing the American Constitution for the benefit of folks who don't live here and therefore don't fall under its jurisdiction.

The next time we disagree, do me a favor and do so without insult. I don't like wallowing in the mud but I won't take rudeness without returning it.

Here's a little conundrum for you free speech devotees.

What happens when the freedom to utter death threats infringes on the freedom of other people to speak their mind?

I've never watched the Penn and Gillette show, can't afford the premium channels in my satellite package. However, I did read an interview with one of them some time ago. I think it may have been Penn.

Anyway he was asked why he never made satirical comments about Islam, only about Christianity. He replied simply, "I have a family." Of course that should not apply to the majority of American Muslims, but it is a fair comment on the extremists. He went on to say that the majority of Christians were "good American liberals" who sent him bibles and told him they were praying for him.

(November 3, 2014 at 5:38 pm)Faith No More Wrote: If we criminalize speech that is not a direct threat, no matter how distasteful, the terrorists win by causing us to give up our freedom for protection. There's a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin that says that anyone that gives up freedom for security deserves neither. Government regulation of speech creates an environment that threatens every freedom you have.

In what way does a quote proves your point of view is right? According to that line of thoughts - We should legalize murder since making it illegal to kill people violates our personal liberty (I can't chose to kill people - What a let down!) and enhances security. Forbidding highly damaging or harmful freedom of expression is a common procedure in Europe - You can't incentive murder, you cant' wave a nazi flag and tell publicly all jews should be exterminated, you can't praise the Al-Qaeda's accomplishments. The problem is NOT that it is offensive, everything we say may be offensive to some people - The problem is when it is harmful to society - Considering there are a lot of ignorant uneducated people out there, we live better by stopping propaganda of certain ideas. I certainly wouldn't like to see a manifestation of people protesting against atheists and saying they should be beheaded, and I'm glad that's illegal.

I understand that for some people it may be right to never give up on freedom of expression and speech, but no right should be absolute, using rights to cause harm to others or to society as a whole shouldn't be allowed.

The phrase of giving up liberty in detriment of security being a bad choice is inherently wrong from the start since there are a lot of structures and aspects in all societies where there is a balance between both values and not a prevalence of individual freedoms - The example of being illegal to murder is an example of security being over freedom. Any other crime is a good example. France forbidding burkas and religious symbols in classrooms is another example.

I am not saying my opinion is flawless and 100% correct, but I just felt like giving a different point of view, considering what I'm saying is basically common sense in many states over Europe, I reckon it may not be in the US and Canada, but a different perspective doesn't harm does it?

The point of terrorism is... to terrorize. I applaud their incredible success in having terrorized so successfully.

The only way you beat 'terrorism' is by ignoring it, laughing it off, or otherwise marginalizing the fear factor. Unfortunately for governments: media *really* likes to report directly to the masses, and it shows, given the 'fear culture' (hey, if they can say rape culture exists, then I can say fear culture is a thing) of the american people.

Well done, terrorists. Seriously: a round of applause for yall, where i'm likely the only one clapping, but applause all the same.

* Violet gives a polite show of appreciation.

If only my art could elicit such an effect upon my readers... but wait. Waiiiiiiit.

It can... Muahuahahahahaahahhah-*hack**cough**cough**hackhack*... ugh, hairball.

---

(November 4, 2014 at 1:07 pm)Blackout Wrote: The problem is when it is harmful to society

Oh, you mean like the ah... war on drugs, homophobia, religion, parents, and... well... bottled milk?

Milk drinkers in general, I mean: I tell ya... they the flightiest yellowbellied catfish I ever saw.

---

(November 4, 2014 at 9:03 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Now, you and I both agree that advocating beheading is obnoxious. But claiming it to be a "threat" is abusing the definition.

But surely we don't disagree that donald trump would look marginally better with a stump instead of a face rump.

(November 5, 2014 at 8:59 am)Alice Wrote: The only way you beat 'terrorism' is by ignoring it, laughing it off, or otherwise marginalizing the fear factor.

Gee, if only the democracies had known back in 1939 that we just had to laugh at the Nazis, we could have saved ourselves six years of "blood, sweat, toil and tears"—four years for you Yanks who were late coming to the party.

I'm sure the terrorists enjoy it if we act terrified, but they have goals far beyond that, and they are not going to hide in caves just because we laugh at them. And you surely did not mean that I should just laugh off the murder of two Canadian soldiers,

The goal of ISIS seems to be to set up a caliphate in the middle east and then to bring the whole world under its sway converting everyone to Islam. They think Allah will inevitably grant them victory. It's delusional of course, but so was Hitler delusional, and it took an immense effort to stop him.

---

(November 4, 2014 at 9:03 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Also, I'd suggest you learn the difference between "threat" and "advocacy". To put it quickly, a threat indicates the personal intent to carry out a deleterious action (see the first denotation in that link), while advocacy merely argues for something. Now, you and I both agree that advocating beheading is obnoxious. But claiming it to be a "threat" is abusing the definition.

Sorry, but I think you are quite wrong about the meaning of threat vs advocacy. Did the sign BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM imply a democratic campaign (advocacy) to have Britain enact beheading laws? I think not. It was more along the lines of, "We're going to behead people when we get a chance." Note that there have been attempts on the life of the Danish cartoonist who depicted Mohammed with a bomb in his turban.

The primary Meriam-Webster definition of "threat" is "an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage."

More importantly, I did not need to refer to hate speech laws as "uttering threats" is a criminal offence. Just to clarify about the hate speech laws, they are intended primarily to protect minority groups from attacks. I may be wrong, but my impression is that in the USA someone could say or write publicly that "blacks are dirty and shiftless" or "Muslims are mostly violent jihadis" but in Canada and many other nations, those statements would land you in deep legal doo-doo.

To expand on the matter of threats there is a whole page of legal summary on uttering threats as an offence in Canada. Here are some important points on the legal interpretation of threats.

Quote: it is irrelevant whether the victim appreciated the threatening nature of the utterance. To put it another way, the effect of the threat on the prospective victim is of no consequence.

It is further of no relevance whether the accused was capable in carrying out the threat.

A conditional threat in certain cases will satisfy the elements of a criminal threat.

Where the potential target of the threat is unknown at the time the threat is made may still allow for conviction so long as it is targeting unascertainable [sic-I think the wiki writers meant "an ascertainable group"] or identifiable group.

The fact that the subject of the threats did not feel threatened by them is not, by itself, reason to result in an acquittal.

As I said, this applies in Canada, but I suspect there are comparable laws at least in all English-speaking common law countries including the USA. It is easier to get information about Canada because the Criminal Code of Canada is the product of the federal government and is uniform across the whole nation, whereas I understand that each state in the US has its own criminal code.

I was able to determine that Texas and Virginia have laws against uttering threats, and there is also a federal law against threatening the president. Apparently in 2010 a man was sentenced to two years for writing in a private email "It is time for Obama to die." Was that a threat or a wish?