10-07-2005 21:25									#31
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

and by the way, I just looked this up- the definition of murder is to "kill another person unlawfully..."

it's a changing definition- in essence your person could be accused of murder if it is not legal for him to kill an intruder or someone threatening him with death.

	10-07-2005 21:37									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Why should he be allowed to spew his racist hatred?

Why not?

Why should communists be allowed to spew class hatred?

	10-07-2005 21:38									#33
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by BeBro How can I become a Jew? I want to be in control of govs as well

Well, first you have to *snip*

	10-07-2005 21:39									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Consider an Islamic cleric who preaches day after day that the West is evil, that the United States is Satan, etc. If the cleric never advocates violences, but simply talks about how the West is out to destroy Islam, etc, should the cleric be allowed to continue?

Yes.

	10-07-2005 21:42									#35
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Az 1.) well you're certainly a killer in that case, maybe not a murderer- but a killer nonetheless. 2.) Blast the guy on Slander then if what he's saying are lies- don't knock him down on 'hate-speech' If he's stating what he knows or can reasonably be expected to know are facts- then what's the problem?

AFAIK, Slander isn't a part of the criminal code, but of the civil one.

	10-07-2005 22:12									#36
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud Yes. The government can watch what he is doing and can monitor his contacts and his associations. Until he actually acts on what he says, he's immune.

So if thousands of people listen to the cleric, and dozens of people begin to bomb American targets, and say that they were inspired by the cleric, even though the cleric never once advocated violence, that's okay?

Coulter goes around calling liberals traitors. If someone reads her books and then goes out and kills some Democrats, is she completely blame free?

Why should her freedom of speech be protected when it causes others to murder?

Shi H draws the line at specifically inciting violence, but why not draw the line at comments that are likely to (meaning the standard legal caveat that a reasonable person would conclude) incite violence.

Or put another way, does a society benefit from people spewing hate?

	10-07-2005 22:14									#37
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: So if thousands of people listen to the cleric, and dozens of people begin to bomb American targets, and say that they were inspired by the cleric, even though the cleric never once advocated violence, that's okay?

Banning communists

What if someone performs an act of revolutionary violence?

	10-07-2005 22:14									#38
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Why not? Why should communists be allowed to spew class hatred?

That's a good question. Would you say that a communist should be allowed to incite hatred on the basis of class? And if someone acted on that hatred, would you only convict the murderer or the person pulling the strings behind the scenes?

	10-07-2005 22:15									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Yes, and the former.

	10-07-2005 22:16									#40
	Tired of ads?

Why?

	10-07-2005 22:21									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Primarily because there is a broad-based recognition that each person is responsible for his or her own ACTIONS.

I can't be arrested for mentioning here that I think America would be a better place if all the politicians died tomorrow.

If I ACT to make that happen, however, different story, with different consequences.

The notion that I may or may not have reached these conclusions fully on my own (as opposed to being spoon-fed them by some hate-spewing anti-polltical figure), does not even enter into the equation.

-=Vel=-

	10-07-2005 22:21									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Why?

Because I'm not a fascist?

	10-07-2005 22:34									#43
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Primarily because there is a broad-based recognition that each person is responsible for his or her own ACTIONS.

But most countries have laws against inciting people to riot. If a cleric says Americans are trying to destroy us so we must strike back in self-defence, and if someone else acts on the cleric's words, then the cleric could be arrested.

I take it you object to such a law.

And what about slander. By your definitions, slander is acceptable.

Edit: And you can't be arrested in Canada for thinking that politicians should be killed.

But you can be arrested in the US under the USA Patriot Act for saying that terrorism is justified and the right thing to do.

	10-07-2005 22:37									#44
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Because I'm not a fascist?

If you want to throw out meaningless lines, then fine.

But why not question your beliefs.

	10-07-2005 22:37									#45
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: So if thousands of people listen to the cleric, and dozens of people begin to bomb American targets, and say that they were inspired by the cleric, even though the cleric never once advocated violence, that's okay?

Yes, because people are responsible for their own actions- they can do whatever they decide- they have many influences acting on their actions... would you say prosecute everyone that that person interacted with? Maybe his parents were racists- obviously they should be incarcerated- oh and he visited a message board on the internet where one poster once stated "I hate __GROUP___" so that person should be hunted down too because he contribuited to the action.

Also, of course we all know that we should be able to sue mcdonalds for employing a person who was rude to me yesterday, because OBVIOUSLY their poor training program encourages racist behavior against Norwegians- I mean, like Woah- it's so OBVIOUS.

And once again- so of course Bush isn't guilty of hate speech when he speaks against 'iraq, iran, north korea' and insults their leaders? And when he invades nations? He 'hates "evil"... he hates "evil people" just like these clerics 'hate' evil americans.

quote: Coulter goes around calling liberals traitors. If someone reads her books and then goes out and kills some Democrats, is she completely blame free?

Yes. Of course. She's just saying things.

quote: Why should her freedom of speech be protected when it causes others to murder?

Because of the reasons I display above. Freedom of Speech must allow people to express themselves. What criteria defines 'causing others to murder'? How can you prove that someone killed another ONLY BECAUSE OF ONE THING HE HEARD?

quote: Shi H draws the line at specifically inciting violence, but why not draw the line at comments that are likely to (meaning the standard legal caveat that a reasonable person would conclude) incite violence.

What would call specificially inciting violence?
"...You should kill americans" would be prosecutable under what I and I think that most current laws suggest.
"...You should hate americans" would not be... and I don't see how you could argue that it specifically incites violence.

quote: Or put another way, does a society benefit from people spewing hate?

Free and open dialogue in the public sphere.
A lack of fear to express oneself.

*******
Also Under your logic, it's completely right for people to sue manufactuerers of games because their games 'promote hate'... for example- in Postal, you can kill people- well- that's hate-speech right there, it's encouraging people to kill... and Quake- d-mnit quake definately caused Columbine- there certainly wasn't any other reason that those kids wanted to shoot up their classmates.

Also added to Vel's statement above- the government CAN, and I agree that it can- go after people if they state: "I am going to kill ____PERSON___ because of what he said." and seem as though they might actually carry it through- that, my friends is a clear and present threat against a specific person, endangering him... but to merely say "I hate __PERSON___ or __GROUP___ and I recommend that you don't give them jobs, because of what they do, etc." THATS just free speech- it's a statement and a recommendation, not an action or promised action.

	10-07-2005 22:37									#46
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: But most countries have laws against inciting people to riot.

Yes, when the inciter is present. Not if the person wrote an editorial in the newspaper that caused the riot.

	10-07-2005 22:39									#47
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: . If a cleric says Americans are trying to destroy us so we must strike back in self-defence, and if someone else acts on the cleric's words, then the cleric could be arrested. I take it you object to such a law.

I'd object. He's not saying kill or bomb, he's saying strike back in self-defense. He's just making statements.

quote: But you can be arrested in the US under the USA Patriot Act for saying that terrorism is justified and the right thing to do.

Which is wrong.

	10-07-2005 22:40									#48
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai But you can be arrested in the US under the USA Patriot Act for saying that terrorism is justified and the right thing to do.

Examples? And do you think I support this?

	10-07-2005 22:41									#49
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: AFAIK, Slander isn't a part of the criminal code, but of the civil one.

Probably true.

Doesn't change my statement though- prosecute them under Slander regulations rather than criminal. It accomplishes the same thing... and keeps the hate above-board instead of hidden and unquantifiable.

Frankly, when the KKK marches, it may gain some interest, but most of the time it just raises hate against itself and its members and humiliates them.

	10-07-2005 22:42									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai If you want to throw out meaningless lines, then fine. But why not question your beliefs.

I agree. Why not listen to what everyone has to say, rather than banning their speech?

	10-07-2005 22:44									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud What would call specificially inciting violence? "...You should kill americans" would be prosecutable under what I and I think that most current laws suggest. "...You should hate americans" would not be... and I don't see how you could argue that it specifically incites violence.

But if both comments result in someone else being violent, then why draw the line at specifically inciting violence?


As for all your comments about games, McDs, etc, the standard caveat applies: Is it reasonable to assume that X would incite violence.

If Joe Idiot says Americans should be killed, but no one listens to Joe Idiot, or is likely to, then there is no need to prosecute him.

	10-07-2005 22:45									#52
	Suffering from ads?

hate-speech laws

	10-07-2005 22:45									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Physiscists

	10-07-2005 22:46									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: But most countries have laws against inciting people to riot. Yes, when the inciter is present. Not if the person wrote an editorial in the newspaper that caused the riot.

How do you defend your distiction. If both things cause the same result, why is one illegal, but the other is not.

	10-07-2005 22:49									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud Doesn't change my statement though- prosecute them under Slander regulations rather than criminal.

So you think that slander should be punishable?

	10-07-2005 22:51									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

wow...lots of comments between now and when I last checked in.

I'd answer the question Ting posted to me about laws against those who incite riots, but Walker and Dark Cloud have already said everything I woulda said anyways, so....nothing to add, really.

The problem comes down to one of where to draw the line, and as we all know, if you give the government (any government, no matter how well trusted or well intended) an inch, they'll take a whole lot more.

So we make laws banning hateful speech against any group, religion, race, tribe, church group, fraternal organization, non-profit group, charity, etc., etc., etc., and prolly a whole bunch of others I forgot.

And then some wise and benevolent politician comes along and decides...you know, that's not quite good enough. In order to promote a more just and tolerent society, we should prevent people from speaking out against government policies....after all, that is "hate" of a different sort, yes? And the government should, of course, be granted the same protections as the other, already protected groups....

And it all seems very reasonable.

Each and every time the politicians come back to strengthen, amend, or otherwise add to the laws further and further restricting what you can and can't say, talk about, think, or feel, until one day you wake up and you don't even recognize the nation you live in.

That's how it happens.

One little nefarious bit at a time.

Best not to even start down that road.

Let the hate mongers be hate mongers, and understand that WHEN they spew their foul messages, some weak-minded few WILL think they find wisdom in the words.

Most will write them off as blowhards.

-=Vel=-

	10-07-2005 22:52									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Of course- slander is lies.

hate speech is opinion.

---
and drawing the line at 'do you think that anyone would listen to joe idiot' is a terrible thing to do- becuase frankly, if my friend publishes a blog saying 'I really hate Jane" and I go out and kill her- I would have been influenced by HIM- not a big public figure...

However, on that same line- he's not responsible in any way for my actions. He just said he hated Jane, not that he wanted her dead.

	10-07-2005 22:58									#58
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: As for all your comments about games, McDs, etc, the standard caveat applies: Is it reasonable to assume that X would incite violence.

So let's let the courts decide and waste peoples' time in litigation.

let's make people afraid to say things and instead nurse those feelings inside thesmelves... without solving the problem at all- ignoring it and imagining that everyone is tolerant of others instead of being open to dialogue and trying to convince them that they are wrong- or being open to being able to enact surveillance on them... since when someone says something suspicious, then the government now has a good reason to spy on them and can get a warrant easier- someone who keeps the reasons private will not write anything and then'll go out and kill someone himself... and the govrnment would never be able to stop him since it never knew of his existence.

David Duke (KKK leader- former governor of Louisiana), and others are high profile hate-spewers... yet they'll never act on their statements since they'll be caught almost instantly since they are so high profile and watched- instead they'll convince others to do things... but why should anyone listen to a leader who's too afraid to act? These people honestly lose their credibility the longer they preach without acting. And then they recede into obscurity.

	10-07-2005 23:00									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Dark Cloud is so completely on it!

-=Vel=-

	10-07-2005 23:05									#60
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai How do you defend your distiction. If both things cause the same result, why is one illegal, but the other is not.

In one case the person is right there, and the police on the scene need to stop him to stop immediate violence - plus, there is a direct, immediate, intentional link between the inciter and the violence. None of this is true of an editorial.