RE: Is there free speech in Belfast?
July 17, 2015 at 8:48 pm
(This post was last modified: July 17, 2015 at 8:51 pm by Dystopia.)
Indeed it is, but I'm not contesting that - I was just saying (about an hour ago) that if eventually people commit a crime because of direct incitement you can be punished.
Regarding your example of the case you invented of someone reading something in AF and then murdering gays - It really doesn't apply unless it's a direct incitement to violence - So if someone by chance read a post here spreading hate about gays and then killed some gays, I would agree with prosecuting the person committing the crime and not the person posting an isolated hateful text... It's a little different when there's direct incitement, specially when there's a physical, personal relationship between the speaker and the listener - Posting something in a random internet forum is not the same as purposefully going everyday to the corner of the street, with the same people listening, and shouting "kill X class of people" or "Coup D' État!" - By definition, anything that potentially threatens public order and national security is objectionable because no one willfully wants to live in such an environment. I wouldn't be ok with someone on the street near my house preaching about how awful Gypsies are and then someone following the word and beating my girlfriend because she's part Gipsy. At the very least, you need to accept that disrupting public order is a crime itself and ought to be punishable - We can't live in a society without that rule - If you accept that, it naturally follows (no non sequitur
) that people who've directly or indirectly contributed to cause a disrupt of public order should be prosecuted. If there's a riot, do you think only those who physically commit crimes should be punished, or would you punish (even if less severely) those who are inciting the riot and even providing tools for it?
Regarding your example of the case you invented of someone reading something in AF and then murdering gays - It really doesn't apply unless it's a direct incitement to violence - So if someone by chance read a post here spreading hate about gays and then killed some gays, I would agree with prosecuting the person committing the crime and not the person posting an isolated hateful text... It's a little different when there's direct incitement, specially when there's a physical, personal relationship between the speaker and the listener - Posting something in a random internet forum is not the same as purposefully going everyday to the corner of the street, with the same people listening, and shouting "kill X class of people" or "Coup D' État!" - By definition, anything that potentially threatens public order and national security is objectionable because no one willfully wants to live in such an environment. I wouldn't be ok with someone on the street near my house preaching about how awful Gypsies are and then someone following the word and beating my girlfriend because she's part Gipsy. At the very least, you need to accept that disrupting public order is a crime itself and ought to be punishable - We can't live in a society without that rule - If you accept that, it naturally follows (no non sequitur

Quote:Free speech may not -require- that I give a douche a magaphone, but I'm definitely -supporting- free speech when I do. Im also hoping to make the "who's who of douchedom" more open to the p[ublic, more transparent. How many of you know who white supremacists feel to be the most compelling voice in white supremacism today is? How can you oppose the rhetoric of white supremacism, if you don't know who's voice it is to look for, whose statements to dispute?Living in a country where fascist and racist parties are illegal (curiously our fascism wasn't racism and there isn't a history of white supremacism, quite the opposite, but whatever) you do know who's racist and who's the biggest voice of white supremacism - In this case because the guy is in jail for killing about 5 black people and threatening the judge with death - And even if it's illegal, there's still a far-right party that uses dog whistle code words to reveal their agenda. Instead of saying "Don't procreate with niggers" they say "we need to preserve our cultural and valid ethnic roots".
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you