I agree.
Stochastic terrorism is targeted political violence that has been instigated by hostile public rhetoric directed at a group or individual. A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism
proclaiming that so and so is the biggest threat a country faces in this political climate is akin to crying “fire” in a a crowded theater.
The “Trump is Hitler” thing - the leftists have been trying to convince others that Trump really IS Hitler, a threat to the nation, etc. Their intent might be to get people to give them money or vote for Democrats, but the effect is that some idiot, convinced that Trump IS a danger, will try to kill him. Regardless of your intent, you are still responsible for the consequences.
I agree.
Punishing speech is like punishing firearms.
It is the the one who takes action that is solely to blame.
Blaming speech or objects restricts individual liberty.
Wrong.
Free speech does not exist.
What you are trying to say is "freedom of speech" which is a totally different animal.
Free Speech is "I can say what I want and there can be no cost, repercussions or even disagreement".
Essentially Free Speech only could exist under one condition, a total dictatorship. Probably the only person currently in the world that has "Free Speech" on any level is Chia Dictator in North Korea.
Now Freedom of Speech means that you can say what you like and the government will not prosecute you. You can however still be fired, ostracized and have people tell you that you are so wrong there is no way to even correct your statement.
You are not free of consequences.
Which also include what can happen if you urge someone else to do something and they do it.
You are not free to have people assume you are "just joking".
People have to be able to assume that you are telling the truth if you threaten them.
Doesn't this just give the J6 persecutors cover? If anyone can "determine" that someone called for something "specific", then what? It seems the better way is to hold each individual responsible for his/her actions.
Change Readhead to Redcoat and try your scenarios.
“Free speech is an absolute right. “
Take it back a step: what is a right?
We need to preserve the purity of the first amendment. Absolutely and without question!
We were in a rush to protect ourselves from the Islamic terror threat right after 9-11 and we ended up with the Patriot Act which is now being used against presidential candidates, presidents, hundreds of thousands of Americans, which includes the suspension of American civil liberties, etc. etc. And it will not stop.
The system that was supposed to prevent the Patriot Acts abuse failed and it will continue to fail.
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
No more government intrusion. The government has proven that you cannot be trusted.
If it is determined that the shooter heard specific calls for Trump to be killed, Lavrenti Garland will bury the finding and try to destroy those who found it, to protect his morally bankrupt cult and his completely amoral boss.
You know, rhetoric such as "It's time for Trump to be put in a bullseye" just five days before he was.
Democrats hve been inciting violence against Trump (and others) for a long time, and Trump isn’t the first. They’ve done this for over half a century that I’m aware of.
“It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye” is clear and deliberate incitement.
Calling for Trump to be “eliminated” is clear and deliberate incitement.
It is liberals who hate free speech.
Example” Yahoo is now having trouble allowing any comments for many articles, saying ‘Retry’.
Or they outright reject.