[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
So inciting mass murder is constitutionally protected?
[/QUOTE]
Advocating violent or otherwise illegal action *in general terms * is constitutionally protected speech, ie. “Rise up and overthrow the government!”, “Kill the liberals!”, “Rob Jew banks!”, etc.
Advocating specific violent or otherwise illegal actions is not protected speech- “Rise up and overthrow the government starting with the Wisconsin state legislature on Tuesday at 11:30am!”, “Kill that liberal over there!”, “Rob this Jew bank right now!”, etc.
The dividing line is called the “clear and present danger” test, which stems from (SCOTUS) Justice Holmes’ opinion in Shenck v. US:
Just in case anyone is interested, here are the UU principles and sources. I don’t think the principles are inherently liberal and, in fact, similar ideas are probably espoused in most religions. The culture of UUism is definitely liberal, though.
So I’m in prison, and the other cons roll up to me to see what I’m made of. Which answer would better improve my status and safeguard my rectum when asked “what are you in for”
(A) “‘Hate Crime’ against a bunch of fag-loving liberals”
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
It doesn’t matter why he did it. Why do we dignify these people with justifications? Charge him, convict him, put him on the gurney, shoot him up, and bury his ass. Other than that I don’t want to hear anything about him. He’s a scumbag. Nothing else needs to be said.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll stick to my liberal ideals and not wish the death penalty on the asshole. I do hope that he gets the help he needs so that he can fully appreciate what a complete douchebag he is, and has to live with that for a very long time.
As a UU myself, I feel I must reconcile the right to free speech (even hate speech) with the fact that it may possibly incite kill-crazy home-grown terrorist shit-for-brains who deserve to be locked up in tiny cages 23 hours a day for life.
I’m kind of surprised by the “Rush made him do it!” attitude that seems to be popping up in this thread. I strongly suspect that most of you (saying that) are the same people who pointed out how ridiculous it was to blame Marilyn Manson for the Columbine shooting- and I don’t see this situation is a million miles away from that one.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I’m kind of surprised by the “Rush made him do it!” attitude that seems to be popping up in this thread. I strongly suspect that most of you (saying that) are the same people who pointed out how ridiculous it was to blame Marilyn Manson for the Columbine shooting- and I don’t see this situation is a million miles away from that one.
[/QUOTE]
Not that I’m on the Blame Rush bandwagon, but Marilyn Manson never advocated shooting up schools. Some right wingers (not including Limbaugh, as far as I know) actually have advocated violence against liberals.
[QUOTE=C3]
Legally, according to Daniel’s link, religion is a protected class and political affiliations are not. So, when the FBI is trying to figure out whether or not to charge this man with a hate crime, they are going to have to untwine his motivations and decide whether or not this was primarily a crime against people of a certain religion or people of a certain political persuasion.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think they will. Look at that link again, this time with boldness:
If it was motivated IN PART by a bias against the religion, that’s all it takes, according to the FBI. Whether it’s the primary, secondary, tertiary, or septuary motivation doesn’t matter, as long as it was part of the motive for the attack.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Not that I’m on the Blame Rush bandwagon, but Marilyn Manson never advocated shooting up schools. Some right wingers (not including Limbaugh, as far as I know) actually have advocated violence against liberals.
[/QUOTE]
It wasn’t the best comparison, given that neither party has advocated violence in that way. A better one would have been between Anne Coulter, who is being blamed here, and the musicians who have advocated violence against cops, or against homosexuals, or against homosexual cops, for that matter.
[QUOTE=villa]
It wasn’t the best comparison, given that neither party has advocated violence in that way. A better one would have been between Anne Coulter, who is being blamed here, and the musicians who have advocated violence against cops, or against homosexuals, or against homosexual cops, for that matter.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know of any musicians who’ve advocated violence against cops in the manner you suggest, though - even Cop Killer, I Shot the Sheriff and the dozens of songs about Pretty Boy Floyd and Bonnie and Clyde and so on killing LEOs were presented in narrative form, rather than as a really long imperative.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
How fragile freedom of speech is, that the acts of an obvious lunatic can spur many here to seriously challenge it.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not challenging freedom of speech at all. I’m not calling for any government censure of Coulter et al. I’m challenging freedom of responsibility from speech: I think we, as a society, ought to (without the government’s involvement) hold Savage and friends responsible for their moral savagery, using our words.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I’m not challenging freedom of speech at all. I’m not calling for any government censure of Coulter et al. I’m challenging freedom of responsibility from speech: I think we, as a society, ought to (without the government’s involvement) hold Savage and friends responsible for their moral savagery, using our words.
And dollars.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Savage already has a base of fans willing to support his moral savagery with dollars and I see no way to change that.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I’m not challenging freedom of speech at all. I’m not calling for any government censure of Coulter et al. I’m challenging freedom of responsibility from speech: I think we, as a society, ought to (without the government’s involvement) hold Savage and friends responsible for their moral savagery, using our words.
And dollars.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Then my comment isn’t directed at you - but you can’t deny that by “responsible” at least some in this thread mean “criminally”.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Savage already has a base of fans willing to support his moral savagery with dollars and I see no way to change that.
[/QUOTE]
Point out that when you talk about the mental defects of liberalism, it can convince mental defects like this to kill liberals. That might start. Or it might not. But it won’t hurt.
Edit: Malthus, you’re right. I was trying to clarify my position, just in case you did think I meant criminal liability.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I don’t know of any musicians who’ve advocated violence against cops in the manner you suggest, though - even Cop Killer, I Shot the Sheriff and the dozens of songs about Pretty Boy Floyd and Bonnie and Clyde and so on killing LEOs were presented in narrative form, rather than as a really long imperative.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure I could find some anarchist oriented punk stuff if I looked hard enough… Not that it bothers me - it is pretty pure political speech in that case.
You’re a fucking retard, Vinyl Turnip, I grew up in one of THE most conservative states in the US in a town of about 4000 and attended church every week (sometimes twice), so I know what the fuck I’m talking about here.
Nobody is carrying guns to church alright? Your stupid fucking wet-dream fantasy DOESN’T EXIST. Why the fuck would you bring a gun to church of all places? I’m glad you wrote that bullshit, so I have it confirmed now that you’re pretty much fucking clueless.
For those dopers who haven’t grown up in the most conservative of conservative and attended church on a regular fucking basis, this asshole is clueless. Such a church doesn’t exist. It’s just a part of VT’s juvenile desire for vigilante justice.
