[Serious] Far-Right Extremism Is a Global Problem

[The Grand Nudger]

Let's recall that it doesn't really matter that inciting violence, is inciting violence, or what the consequences of inciting violence are. It's the position of IA that even in light of all of that, he and everyone else should have the right to do so. We can only assume that this right holds no matter what the specifics are or how it pans out. It's actually his position on prosecuting terrorists that would be in error, if this is his position on violence.

He misspoke when he said that people were responsible for their actions or the consequences of those actions. They are not, he believes that some actions and consequences are beyond any ability of a government to hold people accountable.

He misspoke when he said that people should be prosecuted for terrorist acts, as, again, there are at least some some terrorist acts he condones and maintains should be a right.

He misspoke when he said that yelling fire in a theater was prosecutable. It's not as if saying as much forces anyone to trample any other to death.

IA is advocating for the position that the provision in section 1 of your docs is irrelevant. He does not believe in reasonable limits as prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society - therefore no invocation of those or demonstration of those things is relevant. No more than he believes in our own provisions against such actions here in the US. His mistaken belief that they were allowed is merely thematic. Likewise, however, no appeal to them or such action in any other equivalent situation is consistent with the position.

One wonders how a person could build a rico case, or any organized crime case, in this reality. Osama didn't fly any planes, etc. It's at odds with current reality, and at odds with reasonable limits and democratic societies - but as a position genuinely held, not assailable on the grounds offered. So what if free speech absolutism as described is reckless nonsense. He' asserting a right to reckless nonsense.

(in fairness and to be open, as a matter of law, I think that's simply untenable - but as a matter of fact, I think he has it right - I think that killing and causing death, if they can't be right, can at least be not wrong...and I maintain that this is the last measure a person can give for their genuinely held principles - right or wrong. To kill or cause to be killed or fail to prevent from being killed. I'd let the mob rip him and his white supremacist buddies to shreds, for example. Real time. I'd suggest that they were all guilty of crimes after the fact, ofc.... but I wouldn't stop them beforehand. Gotta wait till there's a body before there can be a crime, isn't that right? )