The Maelstrom of Violence

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-02-2017, 09:36 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 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  Thus, the PATRIOT needs to be repealed and replaced.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.

In the 60s, the focus of much of the equality argument was about restaurants, hotels, bathrooms and water fountains. This involved supremacists exercising the perceived superiority, they were about degradation and insult, but these specific issues were not about words. The federal government claimed and achieved jurisdiction anyway.

The above free dictionary link does mention fighting words. If you happen to be a fit 200+ pound male with any sort of martial training or skill, that gives recourse of sorts. The recourse available to a 100 pound female is less. The form of recourse is not ideal, is not what I want encouraged. I think the equality arguments are emotional and subjective at times. The point of much of the prejudice and hate is to inflict emotional scars. If you are going to refine things like the Patriot's Act, pardon if I don't chime in.

It would be great if people could just be nice to one another, and not to go out of one's way to chase what they consider not nice. That seems a dream to me. Not all people are nice. Somehow, if people are not nice enough, I would think it matters.