Is there free speech in Belfast?

[abaris]

"When they came to take the white supremacists...I stayed silent...because I was not a white supramecist......"

Get it now?

On that we can agree.

[Dystopia]

I agree - I support the right of people I despise to express their views... Some people have a weird notion of free speech as absolute - I've seen people bitch about a university that didn't allow a well known racists to give a lecture - So what? Any entity can refuse your presence for any reason, in this case because it would ruin the university's policy, reputation and rules - Free speech doesn't mean people need to provide you a megaphone and listen to you all day, nor does it mean consequences from your words' actions - If you speak out something highly objectionable and suffer social consequences like unemployment and marginalization, it's not society's fault and it's not an infringement on free speech.

[The Grand Nudger]

But if you suffer -legal prosecution-...that -is- an infringement of free speech.  Hate speech and "inciting to violence" statutes facilitate precisely this, while not, so far as we can tell...providing any measure of protection against the actions that might follow -from- hate speech or those that agree with the contents of hate speech. Shutting them up, doesn't seem to shut them down.

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 public, more transparent. How many of you know, offhand, who white supremacists point to as the most compelling voice in white supremacy today? How can you oppose the rhetoric of white supremacy, if you don't know who's voice it is to look for, whose statements to dispute...and how are you ever going to figure that out, if you allow faceless government agents to hush them under the auspice of "hate speech"?

I, personally, don't think that speech does or should enjoys -absolute- freedom...but establishing that my words are responsible for violence (or a murder) committed by another is going to be a looooong uphill battle, and so it would be a long uphill battle to establish that the words of a bigot are -actually- to blame for the death of some person that bigot doesn't like......when it's another guys neck on the block. I might hate the motherfucker...but I'm not throwing him to the wolves because of it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Boru

[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?

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".

[The Grand Nudger]

I can be punished, yes...but that's just a summary of the field as it stands today, not how strong the justification for that punishment actually -is-.  I don;t think it's very strong....but, people don't get charged with that very often here, even when they get on national TV and say "bomb them" - so obviously we're showing -a little- restraint in utilizing the full authority of law.  This makes me very happy, even if the comments of those nutballs doesn't.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Don't procreate with niggers" they say "we need to preserve our cultural and valid ethnic roots".

LOL, see, over here, they just say it...... No code words required. They aren't -trying- to hide, the only thing hiding them is our insistence that they should and our willingness to use law to incentive it. That's why I think it's a bad idea. We're the ones facilitating precisely what we -don't- want. Not them. They'd stand out in the open and say it, they do...and I think that's the way it -should- be. I don't -want- to give these people any reason to go undergournd, that shits a big problem. Ask the returning vets.

[Dystopia]

I can be punished, yes...but that's just a summary of the field as it stands today, not how strong the justification for that punishment actually -is-.  I don;t think it's very strong....but, people don't get charged with that very often here, even when they get on national TV and say "bomb them" - so obviously we're showing -a little- restraint in utilizing the full authority of law.  This makes me very happy, even if the comments of those nutballs doesn't.

Why do you think the case is weak? In criminal law finding the cause and the author of the crime is imperative. There's many theories, and concepts - The author is not always the person causing the material damage - Sometimes you can be the author by negligence without realizing what your actions (or words) would cause. Imagine the following case - Person A decides to place in a bomb on a school to blow it up and even has a code to trigger it - The following day some random cleaning employee without any connection to person A discovers the bomb and decides to still trigger it (how he did it isn't important) because he hates his job and wants little children to die. Who do we punish? Just the guy who triggered? Would you punish subject A if he didn't trigger the bomb himself or predict that someone else did it for him? (This was an important case in class, I have worse ones if you want)

[The Grand Nudger]

If there's a riot, do you think only those who physically commit crimes should be punished,

Largely, yes.

 or would you punish (even if less severely) those who are inciting the riot and even providing tools for it?

Providing tools...like an IED..is a bit more than expressing ones opinion -no matter how vile that opinion is-.  But...to be completely honest, I wouldn't punish a person who -bought- a de-commed claymore, or even a person who sold one...I'd only punish the person who refurbished it and detonated it in a crowd.  But that's just me.  Sure, I'd make sure the others knew I had my eye on them...but I see no reason to overextend, creating martyrs for causes and possibly showing myself to be exactly what they claimed me to be. Keep in mind......I did this for a living for years......., so I might have a peculiar and non-representative perspective.

Punishing the organizers of a riot rarely resolves the issue, and more often exacerbates it, in my experience.

[Dystopia]

Well if I handle you a claymore specifically to use in a riot (and I know that fact and want that to happen) am I blame free? That's a wonderful society to live in