Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Depends what happened after someone started saying a child molester lived there etc.
During the Trayvon Martin trial Spike Lee tweeted Zimmermans address and some comments about taking care of business. Turns out it was an old couple with the same name. Now what happens if some crackpot had driven over there and set the house on fire killing them?
Now you are into the realm of someone committing murder which really has nothing to do with any of this. We don't arrest people over what might happen.
The guy speeding along doing 110 might hit someone and kill them but if stopped they are only charged with what they actually did. Speeding. We don't charge them with attempted murder.
Quote:
That's pretty much the core argument to the whole thread.
You can tweet, talk, post messages, send letters, go on the radio and say "I wish someone would shoot George Zimmerman".....but if you say we should shoot GZ living at 123 elm street because he's the molester responsible for missing girls in town and somebody goes over there and does it? That's what we are talking about.
There is no proof anyone did anything based upon this guys posts. When a crime against someone takes place, it becomes something different, but that did not happen here.
Manson would not have been arrested if he would have said "hey, lets go up into the hills and kill a few people" if no one had actually done it.
Reminds me of an old Soviet joke: An American went to the Soviet Union and started talking to a Russian about freedom of speech. He told the Russian, "In my country, we can say whatever we want about the government. I can stand in Times Square and shout 'Down with Reagan!' and no one will arrest me."
The Russian replied, "We have freedom of speech too! I can stand in Red Square and shout 'Down with Reagan!' and no one will arrest me either!"
"More so than Canada" and this bullcrap after I've posted a couple of examples of the U.S prosecuting similar or even less obvious and egregious examples.
The U.S. has examples of similar prosecutions dating back decades (1941) and as recent as last year in Texas. What say you about that?
If you would have read the entire story of the cross burning's you would have got to the part where they explain that the Supreme Court threw out the charges.
If you would have read the entire story of the cross burning's you would have got to the part where they explain that the Supreme Court threw out the charges.
Oh I did; BUT was it not still prosecuted? Now about those other cases.....?
and while we're at it what about this little tid bit:
He was on probation and broke the terms of his probation. Terms which had agreed to in writing in order to get probation. No matter where one stands on the Canadian Human Rights Act it should have been obvious to him that he needed to follow the court's directives until he was off probation.
Now you are into the realm of someone committing murder which really has nothing to do with any of this. We don't arrest people over what might happen..
Actually it's a key part of the discussion because it shows the results than can occur from specifically inciting violence which is the reason that inciting violence is illegal even if nothing actually happened. (Kinda like how solicitation of murder is also illegal)
General rabble rousing isn't enough, that's still protected free speech....otherwise Sharpton would have gotten 20 years for what went down at Freddies Fashion Mart.
My rights end when I need to initiate force upon another to exercise them, because I, nor anyone else, has a right to initiate force upon another. Any thought, speech, action that is not an initiation of force against anyone else is well within a human's natural rights.
Any initiation of force, aggression, by a person, group, or government against any person, group, or government is immoral, evil, and anti-human. Only retaliatory force is "just". Initiation of force is never "just".
Actually it's a key part of the discussion because it shows the results than can occur from specifically inciting violence which is the reason that inciting violence is illegal even if nothing actually happened. (Kinda like how solicitation of murder is also illegal)
Solicitation of murder requires more than someone spouting off they want someone dead.
Quote:
General rabble rousing isn't enough, that's still protected free speech....otherwise Sharpton would have gotten 20 years for what went down at Freddies Fashion Mart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
