Stupid Asshole Deprived of Free Speech & Due Process by Other Stupid Assholes

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Or if there's a bomb on an aircraft, it'd suck if a person saw one and didn't say anything.

what about a simple joke about a bomb while waiting for your flight?

Okay. So you see no difference between saying there is a bomb and saying, "I have a bomb." How about banning the word "gun" in a bank, wherein stating, "I have a gun" is equally culpable to "he's got a gun."

Or making "I have a gun" illegal to say in a bank? Let's ban cops from saying it, too.

It's pretty amazing that you cannot see the difference.


Note: my thought is speech shouldn't be banned. Think of banning the word "Nazi." It would also mean making it a criminal act to call someone a Nazi. if such a law was passed, I'd think Lucky would be on a suicide watch...

Instead of banning, if someone's speech incites people to riot (that is, not some peckerwood lobbing molotov cocktails because blacks are marching down the street but rather a person inciting people to attack othersy then that person should be held accountable for the damage he/she caused.

It's how the White Aryan Resistance was destroyed - making them pay for the damage they caused, and not by preventing the possibility of them damaging something.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

To Andy's point, I also thoroughly disagree with the law. It has a tendency to lead to a couple of things.

I know, it's not as if a simple thing as a jury verdict could cause a riot that kileld 53 people or anything . I agree, speech before life

You're correct. So ban jury verdicts! They may be insensitive. So any juror who participates in reaching a verdict shall be guilty of a felony.

How dare those jurors cause all those deaths? There should be a law that bans "not guilty" verdicts - they may cause riots.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Okay. So you see no difference between saying there is a bomb and saying, "I have a bomb." How about banning the word "gun" in a bank, wherein stating, "I have a gun" is equally culpable to "he's got a gun."

Or making "I have a gun" illegal to say in a bank? Let's ban cops from saying it, too.

Quote

It's pretty amazing that you cannot see the difference.

When it comes to the reception of a teller, the diff is nill. They hear, "gun" they think robbery; let's not be semantic here.

Quote

Note: my thought is speech shouldn't be banned. Think of banning the word "Nazi." It would also mean making it a criminal act to call someone a Nazi. if such a law was passed, I'd think Lucky would be on a suicide watch...

I would abscond . Nazi has a diff meanign here than in Germany. If I ever go to Germany I would not use that language and I would not bring my Nazi-era coins. To compare what happens here and to what happens there is ridiculous.

Quote

Instead of banning, if someone's speech incites people to riot (that is, not some peckerwood lobbing molotov cocktails because blacks are marching down the street but rather a person inciting people to attack othersy then that person should be held accountable for the damage he/she caused.

It's how the White Aryan Resistance was destroyed - making them pay for the damage they caused, and not by preventing the possibility of them damaging something.

With that logic we wouldn't be preemptive and drunk driving would only be a crime in an accident occurred while drunk. Many laws are based upon potentials.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

To Andy's point, I also thoroughly disagree with the law. It has a tendency to lead to a couple of things.

I know, it's not as if a simple thing as a jury verdict could cause a riot that kileld 53 people or anything . I agree, speech before life

You're correct. So ban jury verdicts! They may be insensitive. So any juror who participates in reaching a verdict shall be guilty of a felony.

How dare those jurors cause all those deaths? There should be a law that bans "not guilty" verdicts - they may cause riots.

I guess I coul;d have expected that, but my point was taht if a jury verdict can cause that kind of riot then a KKK rally could too. Resting on our laurals isn't worth all that.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
It's how the White Aryan Resistance was destroyed - making them pay for the damage they caused, and not by preventing the possibility of them damaging something.

What was destroyed?

http://www.aryan-nations.org/about.htm

As long as there are countries like yours allowing them to spread thier theses, nothing *was destroyed*.

Long live free speech.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

When it comes to the reception of a teller, the diff is nill. They hear, "gun" they think robbery; let's not be semantic here.

Banning words is inherently semantic. Asking not to be semantic when talking about banning speech is like saying, "we're not talking about inert gases. We're talking about the reactivity of argon."

Laws are words. Nothing else. Words. banning words with words is a sematic exercise.



[Reply]

Quote

Note: my thought is speech shouldn't be banned. Think of banning the word "Nazi." It would also mean making it a criminal act to call someone a Nazi. if such a law was passed, I'd think Lucky would be on a suicide watch...

I would abscond . Nazi has a diff meanign here than in Germany.

Of course you would abscond. But you will have the word Nazi to express what you think about something and you won't use it - even though it has a wholly separate meaning to you. Your words could be innocent - too bad. Jail and/or fine. And you'd be considered a racist, too.

But one way or another, you'd have to think, "you know? I really cannot express myself as I want to express myself." Ergo, your speech isn't free.

You know, it's a crime to disparage Allah in many places on this earth. Thus, much of western europe shares some common political ideology with the Taliban - thoughts and words so offensive you can be punished for speaking them.


[Reply] If I ever go to Germany I would not use that language and I would not bring my Nazi-era coins.

Yep. You'd have to think twice about what you do and say.

Quote

To compare what happens here and to what happens there is ridiculous.

In a sense yes (we have a Constitution (which you find meaningless now) that says the government cannot ban speech). In another sense it is comparable because there are plenty that try to ban offensive speech (the left would like to end facially racist, sexist, and homphobic langue and the right would like to ban flag burning, sex talk, etc). There are those here who want such bans but disagree on the stuff that they think should be banned.


[Reply]With that logic we wouldn't be preemptive and drunk driving would only be a crime in an accident occurred while drunk. Many laws are based upon potentials.

Drunk driving isn't speech. There is no right to drive! It's a privilege. The government doesn't ban drinking (it tried that via Constitutional Amendment and then reversed by another Amendment). But the government can prescibe conditions for operation of a motor vehicle.

Imagine banning joking about drunk driving. Drunk driving is a very serious subject, and causes more deaths each day than jury verdicts cause each year.

It is not a laughing matter. Joking about it is advocating drunk driving. Thus, all speech about drunk driving that is not derogatory towards it should be banned.

That's what we're talking about. A big difference.

And it's also why bans on "fighting words" have been universally overturned as violating the First Amendment. This is because people like me, as well as Andy and the drafters and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights, subjectively see a greater danger in banning speech than in preventing dangerous speech.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What was destroyed?

http://www.aryan-nations.org/about.htm

Their ability to hav a greater audience. They are a shell of what they were.



[Reply]As long as there are countries like yours allowing them to spread thier theses, nothing *was destroyed*.

Yep. You subjectively see this as "bad." Your belief is that anything you disagree with should be banned. "Those people are saying bad things. They should be locked away. They are bad people who must be removed from society."

Is that your thinking? It seems that Western Europe has a nasty history when it comes to the end result of attempting to remove those whose ideas are contrary to the ideas of those who are in charge.



[Reply]Long live free speech.

I'm glad that you are free to make that statement.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

And it's also why bans on "fighting words" have been universally overturned as violating the First Amendment.

That's right. Because if offensive speech can be made unlawful, then things like
THIS (clicky) - which was very probably provoked by a "fuck you" kind of comment - could be deemed "enforcement of the law".

[Andy9o8 0]

Oh, by the way - re: the "Deprived of due process" part of my title - that's in there because Germany tried, convicted and sentenced him in absentia. And that's for an interview he gave to Swedish TV, none of which (interview) was conducted on or within German sovereign territory (nor was he responsible for the interview later being released in Germany). Take a bow, Germany!

[lawrocket 3]

Well said. Maybe the guy was passing out Holocaust denial literature to the horse. Nobody can expect not to respond violently to that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
Yep. You subjectively see this as "bad." Your belief is that anything you disagree with should be banned. "Those people are saying bad things. They should be locked away. They are bad people who must be removed from society."

Is that your thinking? It seems that Western Europe has a nasty history when it comes to the end result of attempting to remove those whose ideas are contrary to
the ideas of those who are in charge.
....

I'm not surprised about that idiotic comment.

Like I said before in another thread, you surely are NO lawyer. Dealing with statutes needs a special education.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[lawrocket 3]

Like the guy in Lebanon who predicted stocks and is going to be beheaded in Arabia for it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Dealing with statutes needs a special education.

That was awesome.

Hear that, Jerry? It's the short bus for us.



Of course, over there it would be a one-way trip.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

I guess the legal term that matters here is: FORSEEABLE. Is it forseeable that denying the holocaust or dropping the N-bomb in the US would likely end up with a riot? Of course it is, trherefore it s/b a crime and a tort.

All I can say about that is...wow. You sure know how to take something completely out of context. I didn't say foreseeable consequences are the only measure of the limits of free speach so why did yoy take it that way?

Quote

Many are denied permits, just as a permit to deny the Holocaust in Germany, Austria, etc would be denied summarily as a matter of law.

Yep. And many of those denials are appealed and won.

Quote

Glad we agree

We do? On what?

Don't you think it is extremely hypocritical of you to determine this subject should not be allowed to be discussed because it may anger people, or that subject should be banned because somebody might have a violent reaction to it.....all in the same forum where you routinely refer to past Republican Presidents as fascists, dictators, etc. ? I was in Tallapoosa, Georgia many years ago and listened to a speach at a KKK rally. The words and terms they used to describe non-whites were not nearly as strong as the words you use here in this forum to describe those who don't agree with your political views.
Would you care for me to copy and paste some of your remarks so you may be reminded?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[lawrocket 3]

Yes or no:

Do you believe that there is speech out there that does not deserve to be protected?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Dealing with statutes needs a special education.

Hear that, Jerry? It's the short bus for us.



Of course, over there it would be a one-way trip.

I'm not Jerry, AndyNineOEight.

Seems, my comment fits you, too.

What a pity.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Andy9o8 0]

Papers, please.

[lawrocket 3]

Andy:

What's going on is another person out there has been raised with an ethos that the system he/she was raised in is superior. The ethos dictates that some ideas simply are so terrible that the mere mention is worthy of criminal sanction.

You and I have a different ethos based upon the notion that thoughts and ideas are important, and that no matter how subjectively ridiculous or even objectively dangerous the idea is, that a greater danger lies in squelching speech than in allowing it.

I, too, believe this system to be superior.

I believe, however, that your and my learned ideas sound ridiculous to his/her way of thought. Because we come from different viewpoints, we are morons and deserving of "special education." Meanwhile, people like you and me realize that his/her ideas are not idiotic - just different. Perhaps this is because we are trained to actually respect opposing views.

I wonder is "special education" is the same as "re-education."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Here we I use it as a very bad metaphor to describe Republicans, there they produced it.

Fixed that for you - but it's still sorta different - you never *DID* prove your claim about Hoover killing...what was it? 12 million?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Why is it not allowed and an arrest be made for disorderly conduct if a fool started using it openly on teh streets or at work, etc?

Cite, please - never heard of anyone getting arrested for that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...The shame, as I see it, is how many people in the US who favor the stifling of speech they abhor - as if they are the ones who desire the totalitarian power to decide what is permissible to say.

That's Americans at their best.

"I support your right to Free Speech as long as you don't say anything that pisses ME off."

There's your assholes.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Here we I use it as a very bad metaphor to describe Republicans, there they produced it.

Fixed that for you - but it's still sorta different - you never *DID* prove your claim about Hoover killing...what was it? 12 million?

No fix, that was your assertion represented as mine.

How did we go from Republican metaphors to a diff old argument? As for Hoover policies killing xxx number of Americans, I already agreed that the source was a quick look and likely high. They used census data which really isn't reliable to determine deaths since the Republican kingdom was so horrible that people fled to go to places like the USSR. Basically tho, for you and for Republicans, the number isn't important, dead Americans during the GD, Katrina, etc are not the issue, it's how taxes are spent. The Nazi Republican machine wants all asset left with and/or given to the elite for use in military operations to kill people and leave the few in a position of luxury; dead Americans are just, as the Great Republican Timothy McVeigh would say: collateral damage. So my point was made regardless of the actual number, affirmed by you here being more worried about the actual number than the fact that there was widespread suffering at the hands of, you guessed it, a Republican.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

...The shame, as I see it, is how many people in the US who favor the stifling of speech they abhor - as if they are the ones who desire the totalitarian power to decide what is permissible to say.

That's Americans at their best.

"I support your right to Free Speech as long as you don't say anything that pisses ME off."

There's your assholes.

No, the assholes are: go ahead and say what you want, if it incites riots, so what? If people die, so what? Absolute free speech is more important than civil order.

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...The shame, as I see it, is how many people in the US who favor the stifling of speech they abhor - as if they are the ones who desire the totalitarian power to decide what is permissible to say.

That's Americans at their best.

"I support your right to Free Speech as long as you don't say anything that pisses ME off."

There's your assholes.

No, the assholes are: go ahead and say what you want, if it incites riots, so what? If people die, so what? Absolute free speech is more important than civil order.

I would venture that the person responsible for the riot is the person who actually starts acting violently. Somebody saying something you abhor doesn't give you the right to do whatever the fuck you want.
If you only have the freedom to say things that everybody already agrees with, you don't really have "free" speech. Also, I highly agree with what lawrocket said about keeping the bigots out in the open. It makes it easier to counter their arguments and takes away their ability to argue from the position of "they're trying to shut me up because they know I'm right and they can't defeat my clearly superior arguments."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here we I use it as a very bad metaphor to describe Republicans, there they produced it.

Fixed that for you - but it's still sorta different - you never *DID* prove your claim about Hoover killing...what was it? 12 million?

No fix, that was your assertion represented as mine.

Au contraire

Quote

And really, even after Hoover's apathy killed 12 million

Ring a bell for you? Please note the author of the post.

Quote

How did we go from Republican metaphors to a diff old argument?

Because of idiotic comparisons like you make SO often.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706