The Maelstrom of Violence

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-02-2017, 09:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-02-2017, 07:06 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-02-2017, 05:31 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: If you wish to disparage the removal of Confederate monuments from public places to what ISIS or the Taliban does -- ask me what those people would do to monuments of Martin Luther King.

If we're speaking of Antifa, which I am at any rate, the same thing they did to a statue of Abraham Lincoln.  I've heard nothing from white identitarians about a desire to do a damn thing about any monument to MLK or any other black Americans.  They seem far more preoccupied with the notion that no monuments be destroyed.

As for words indicating intention to commit violence.  Tell me which is providing that intention:

"Hey everyone lets have a rally for free speech"

Criminal speech has never had protection under the law. That includes incitement to riot.

Quote:"Let's go punch some nazis."

There are countries in which Nazism itself is illegal. That's not much of a loss of liberty.

1.   Here's the legal definition of incitement. .  While "Jews will not replace us" is objectionable, it's not incitement... Well, perhaps with the exception of snowflakes who get triggered by any speech outside their "safe spaces".  I, personally prefer to apply law in a non subjective fashion.

2. "Let's go punch some Nazis" does fall under incitement, since that phrase calls for explicit violence against "Nazis".  The term, "Nazi" is highly subjective which is why that word isn't in the law books. Antifa, for example does as Kinser has explained before, applies the term "Nazi" to pretty much anyone to the right of Mao.  If the law allows one to allow the punching of group X. Then, yeah, I'd love to get a simple message of "Let's go pepper spray/taser anyone who either is or appears to be a member of Antifa" out, since that would  be just as legal.

3. It is highly desirable to have the rule of law instead of wishy washy or vague application of punishment due to subjective interpretations. In fact there are lots of laws like the PATRIOT act that are full of emotional subjective laws.  Thus, the PATRIOT needs to be repealed and replaced.

4. There are indeed laws against assorted free speech we have here in the US, but you'll find such laws in Russia,EU,China,and a shitpot of 3rd world hellholes like Venezuela. I find none of those places worthy of emulation when it comes to fundamental rights.

NB.  The link above is for Australia.  Here's some info for the US.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...ive+Speech

Rags is not a lawyer.