Is there free speech in Belfast?

[Dystopia]

Largely, yes.

A riot isn't just the physical damage happening - There's usually a reason and a strong sentiment of revolt and distrust involved, no one riots because they think it's cool - It is my opinion that everyone who at least intentionally contributes to material damage of the crime should be punished. Obviously some lone person who sold a weapon isn't to be blamed, or even the dealer who sold the claymore shouldn't be arrested for that specific riot crime - But those who intentionally indulge the activity itself should be punished, as all of them desired the final result (the riot and the material damage)

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, don't be surprised if your method breed more riots, rather than fewer riots.

[The Grand Nudger]

Both (in your example).  I would punish "A" less because he didn't actually follow through, yes.  I'm willing to let people go to the edge of the cliff so long as they don't jump.  People make mistakes, you know...lol. Ive been perched myself, on the edge of a crime.. many times (bet you have as well)..... Until I -actually- commit it.....meh. Person "B" saw the opportunity and committed. They're going to get the hammer, from me, though "A"s life isn't exactly going to be pleasant either. Permanent shitlist.

Its a useless example though, as "hate speech" and "inciting to violence" offenders merely, in the strongest possible sense..suggested that someone -ought- to put a bomb in the building...they didn't actually do it. Can you see why I don't see any relevance?

I'll suggest all day and twice on sundays that the vatican and the kaaba ought to be demo'd.....that the world would be a better place in the long run for it...does that make me equivalent to someone who sets off a bomb in the vatican or the kaaba, or even one who places one there and doesn't set it off? Does that make -me- complicit in -their- crime? No, it does not.


\-end of.

[Dystopia]

My point with that example is that even unintentionally you can be the author of a crime - In that case A placed the bomb so he is the source of the material damage even if someone else triggers without his consent - Because if it wasn't for his actions none of that wouldn't have happened. The same applies to someone who thinks inciting disrupt of public order isn't really going to result in an actual disrupt of public order - Inevitably we would be punishing accomplices but never the author, and the latter could continue doing his thing and disrupting public order countless times.

I wasn't using that example for hate speech but the relationship between authors and accomplices. It moderately applies to "hate speech" - But I'm not really defending the criminalization of hate speech but merely punishing those who contribute to material damage. There's a huge difference. I don't discriminate those who contribute to harm by words or actions - as long as they are intentionally partaking in a criminal activity, they should be punished - Some words will inevitably be criminalized - See the example of the crime lord who never personally committed any crime himself other than shouting orders.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that hate speech is a significant contributor to material damage.  Again, you're free to assign whatever value to all of this you wish...but if you found yourself accused of hate speech and inciting violence before a sharia court and implicated in the bombing of a site where women were buried to their necks before being stoned....I'd be on your side, even if the case against you was -airtight-.

I know, I know, it's frustrating when the law can't get em all....but them's the breaks, and we keep it that way so that the law doesn't -unintentionally- sweep up those not culpable (or those we don't wish to prosecute, for whatever reason). I suppose that eventually you'll have to come to terms with that or be forever disappointed by law?

[Dystopia]

I don't think that hate speech is a significant contributor to material damage.  Again, you're free to assign whatever value to all of this you wish...but if you found yourself accused of hate speech and inciting violence before a sharia court and implicated in the bombing of a site where women were buried to their necks before being stoned....I'd be on your side.

Indeed - But if I voluntary incited a riot, or disrupt of public order - I think the insecurity and harm to which I've contributed with the intent of harming people - Ought to get me punished. Note that I only advocate this if the material harm actually happens - If no one acts on anyone's words, it's useless to arrest anyone.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're -assuming- guilt and negative value judgement as though the law doesn't facilitate the punishment of those -not guilty-, or those guilty of a "crime" which we, both of us, would applaud as right and just. Even when people do act, you arrest those who act, not those who speak........that's just my take. I could talk about committing a crime all day, here on these boards. I don't expect anyone to show up and put me in handcuffs. If they did, it's going to be an expensive disappointment for them. A few weeks in county...that's vacation from my kids. Yes, I -absolutely- want a public defender...lol. I hope the trial drags on for as long as possible......I have very little do do between now and harvest.

[C4RM5]

In Northern Ireland, you seem to be able to speak out against any group or religion, but not Islams.