Posted on 07/15/2024 3:26:35 PM PDT by nitzy
Free speech is an absolute right. Anyone should be able to say any opinion they hold regardless of how distasteful, offensive, scary, obscene, etc...
However, you are also responsible for the speech.
If were to say, "I hate redheads.", that may be offensive to some but it is my opinion and should be legal. Same thing if I was talking about blacks, jews, muslims, etc....
If I were to say, "I wish all redheads would die."... same scenario.
If I were to say, "I wish someone would kill that particular redhead." That MAY still be legal. However, if someone were to hear my words and be motivated by my specific call to a specific action, that should be handled differently. That should be considered incitement and my words should be punishable.
If it is determined that the shooter heard specific calls for Trump to be killed from social media, celebrities, entertainment etc... and followed through with those instructions, the speakers of the words should be held legally accountable.
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.
“stochastic” is a 20 dollar word for “random” which really means “random looking.”
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.
:: political violence that has been instigated by hostile public rhetoric directed at a group or individual ::
Republicans are racist and white supremacists.
Wow.
Thanks for posting.
Is it? Is one forbidden to opine that a specific individual, even a specific highly placed political figure, is the biggest threat to the country’s future?
Would you forbid a citizen to hold such an opinion?
Would you forbid a citizen to express such an opinion?
Seems to me that’s the sort of opinion that the First Amendment is supposed to protect. It’s about political speech, not girlie magazines.
Be careful what you ask for ... you might get it.
meh. i already have it.
and you know in what context everything about Trump is aid. Key words: “in this political climate.”
Objection overruled
^ is said
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.
You’re not a judge, so you don’t get to “overrule” anything.
I’ve seen a lot of rhetoric on this very forum, especially the last couple of days, calling for the abolition of the democrat party, the imprisonment of democrats in “gitmo” (Please ... can people learn to speak English?), and expressing the opinion that anyone in any way related to the democrat part is in league with the devil.
I may (or may not) agree with any or all of that.
In any case, it’s free speech.
Speech that tends to demonize us, or to demonize politicians we might happen to like, is also free speech.
The First Amendment protects political speech ... even political speech that one or another group might dislike.
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.
Thanks for letting me know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.