RE: New Zealand Bans Manifesto
March 24, 2019 at 12:29 pm
(This post was last modified: March 24, 2019 at 12:40 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(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.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
