And if he was a total schmuck it, he wouldn’t be worth bothering with.
I agree that he’s met with a fair amount of response from the left side of the center, as is appropriate.
This sounds a bit like I am disagreeing with you, but I don’t think I actually am much…
The ACLU is wrong. Someone spewing hatred and advocating the murder of others isn’t going to be swung to the side of right by words, and I think it should be taken one step further. We prosecute people for supporting terrorism through words (Abu Hamza anyone?); why should we not advocate for the prosecution of those who support politically-based murder through words? How is this different than the radical Jihadis who say anyone who disagrees should die?
Self-policing is good, but the radical right doesn’t want to self-police. They want to keep these people deep in the fold, to scare their base into keeping on supporting them, especially as the values of the Conservatives in power and the radical right are so contrary to the values of everyday Conservative Americans.
And I will continue to push back on Der Trihs every time he says something I disagree with. Which is why I think the ‘don’t be a jerk’ rule should be used here, as well as in the political arena with fuckwits like Coulter.
That’s a tough one, Gomi. Boy, the minute you come close to impinging on free speech, I get antsy. But you’re right in that supporting politically based killing of groups through words is walking pretty darned close to the line.
The problem is, we can’t even agree what ‘Don’t be a jerk’ means here on this message board, let alone in the country. I don’t think we can afford on a national scale to leave it like pornography: “I know it when I see <or hear> it.”
I am very nervous about impinging on speech as well; to be honest, if I felt we hadn’t already ‘gone here’ with restrictions on speech regarding the advocacy of terrorism, then I wouldn’t think of it. But we’ve always said, in many many cases, that all speech has limits and those limits include advocating the death of others. Bricker’s post earlier in the thread states this - the more focused the advocacy (kill Charles Jones at 123 Hunterbaser Lane in E. Bumfuck, ID this Friday with a pitchfork vs. kill the gays) the more liable someone is, but they are still liable although they didn’t do the killing themselves.
I disagree we don’t know what ‘don’t be a jerk’ means, either. If Der Trihs could keep the same sort of level tone he has in his first 1-2 posts on a given topic, then he would be someone to listen to. The minute he starts in with his normal schtick about soldiers or the religious it’s like the crazy guy shouting in the alley - you just ignore it and move away even if every other sentence makes sense. But him using the kind of deliberately inflammatory language he does is clearly being a jerk.
A terrorist is a criminal with a political opinion.
Spare me the assist and don’t tell me about the political opinions of criminals. It makes terrorism harder, if no one listens to your message.
Tris
I don’t know - for someone nervous about impinging on speech you seem to be a little bit trigger happy at doing it. Unless you can show a direct causal link between a person’s comments and a killing, I think you have gone too far.
I just don’t have any sense of where you will draw the line, or want others to draw it for you. Calling for the death of tyrants is pretty much core political speech. “Wouldn’t it be great if the Zimbabwean people overthrew Mugabwe and killed him?” Should a comment like that expose me to liability?
And one person’s tyrant is another’s hero. I found most of what Sinn Fein stood for to be wrong. I didn’t and wouldn’t (if the situation in NI changes) support their rights to speech being removed, though. And do we stop this at killing? What if a person advocates a savage beating to be given to those he disagrees with? Or a not-so-sound beating? Or a mocking?
As for being a jerk - well, there are people, myself including, who think advocating curtailing the political speech of others is being a jerk. But to suggest banning someone from a message board for that would make me kind of a hypocrite.
This thread’s going down a road I don’t normally like to follow, but I read this and wanted to just hop in and ask Daniel: Mind if I use this as a sig line? (With proper credit given, of course.)
I’d be flattered!
Daniel
So if you make a living distributing bullets are you liable when bullets get used?
Just to keep things non-theoretical, my friend who broke her leg in this incident had surgery on Monday. Her leg will be in a hip-to-ankle cast for 2 months. Then she’ll have extensive physical therapy.
She will have to not work for the next several months and they are trying to figure out howto get her girls to their school since she can’t drive.
The only positive to this is that her kids were not injured.
Where I will draw the line is very clear - those advocating extra-legal acts of murder and mayhem, whether or not they themselves commit those acts, are responsible to a degree based on their relative authority for those acts commited by their fans / followers / friends / family.
I’ve never suggested Der Trihs or anyone else be banned or muffled or gagged in any way - I’ve been very specific on that. But your claim that free speech is a value that trumps all others is simply silly. Speech has limits and always has, and what I am suggesting is neither radical nor all that different from current laws which apparently you have no issue with.
Finally, if you’re going to call me a jerk, just do it. This is the pit. Couching an insult in mealy-mouthed phrases like you’ve done is weak, and rather than make you look wise and moderate, which I am sure was your aim, it just makes you look like a wimp.
Yes. Why not? Bartenders are liable for patrons drinking and driving and killing people, why should guns be sacred?
Well, possibly because nobody would make guns anymore. By that standard, you could sue Ford every time someone got run over by a Focus, or DuPont if somebody was strangled using a nylon cord…
Y’know what? I totally forgot that. That’ll teach me to come bak to threats without reading all seven thousand posts. 
Great point, since making bartenders liable was a terrible thing and should be outlawed.
Little bit of a different standard. Guns are invented, designed, and perfected to kill, yet gun manufacturers and bullet manufacturers seem to be eternally surprised when they are used to kill people. You can’t say the same about a Ford Focus or a nylon cord; both have purposes 99% of the population will only ever use which have nothing to do with murder.
Anything to add to this other than a drive-by?
I’m inclined to agree with this.
Sure - we should treat people like intelligent individuals, and stop trying to blame others.
Blaming the bartender for the drunk driver is bullshit.
Blaming the gun shop for the shooter is bullshit.
Blaming the auto dealer for the road rager or street racer is bullshit.
Blaming the demogogue for the actions of the listener is bullshit.
In each of these we HAVE the problem identified, but we want to blame someone else too. It is part of the culture of sharing the blame, rather than accepting it.
I haven’t noticed a shortage of bartenders. Perhaps, like bartenders, gun manufacturers and Ford would start being more selective about who they sell their products to.
Guns are invented, designed, and perfected to put a piece of lead far away very fast and accurately. About 99.99% of the time, they are put to that use without it having anything to do with murder.