Restricting Violent Speech

CaptainHaplo · 01-13-11, 08:50 PM

Wow Takeda - can you link some info on Jefferson that shows that? I have never heard it before and am interested where that data is.

I do agree with your point - its going to happen. Its unfortunate - but its not the cause of violence. IF - God forfend - IF civilians take up arms against the government, it will be because the government has failed the people, not because of some extremist on either side telling people to do it.

Tater - Congress and the Judiciary threw out "free speech" when they got involved in allowing Congress to try and institute incumbent re-election insurance oops sorry thats election "reform".

Takeda Shingen · 01-13-11, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Wow Takeda - can you link some info on Jefferson that shows that? I have never heard it before and am interested where that data is.

http://millercenter.org/academic/ame...ys/biography/3

Go to the second section entitled 'The Campaign and Election of 1800'. It's in the third paragraph:

Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes

Here's a collection of some others with reference links:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/29/so...ck-ads-circa-1

And someone posted a mock attack ad on YouTube using the various quotes. Very, very funny:

mookiemookie · 01-13-11, 09:30 PM

"Hatchet faced nutmeg dealer"

August · 01-13-11, 09:37 PM

"Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated? Children writhing on the pike?"

Bet you didn't know you could vote for that stuff.

...and target icons are nothing. How about coffins?

TLAM Strike · 01-13-11, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

"Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated? Children writhing on the pike?"

Bet you didn't know you could vote for that stuff.

Damn, I think I got my campaign platform for when I run for office! Thanks August!!

tater · 01-13-11, 09:57 PM

No, guys, Skybird tells us that it's worse than ever. So forget about President number 2 suggesting President #3 would result in "children writhing on pikes," that was WAY more civil than asking to look at a birth certificate.

August · 01-13-11, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

No, guys, Skybird tells us that it's worse than ever. So forget about President number 2 suggesting President #3 would result in "children writhing on pikes," that was WAY more civil than asking to look at a birth certificate.

But Tater! It's Spiegel, it must be true!

Ducimus · 01-13-11, 10:13 PM

All i have to say is those that lead, or are in leadership positions, need to be mindful of what they say, and how they say it because what they say/ and do, has reaching effects.

Those who lead, should do so by example, and aspire to be respected for their abilities, and not due to just their position.

As to restricting political speech, im not sure what to think. On one hand, It is after all, illegal to say the word "bomb" in an airport. And those who give the order to do something violent (either directly, or implied), are just as culpable as the person executing the order.

On the other hand, the first amendment should not have it's integrity compromised. Once you've made it a bendable, and compromising, it becomes tantamount to putty that will be fixed and formed to fit whatever those in power want it to be. Then, we ALL lose.

So i guess it falls back to leadership, and those in leadership positions to rely on tact and to realize their role, and the effect of their words, actions and deeds in the big picture. It's a Pity we have to look to politicans for that. The scumbags.

Platapus · 01-15-11, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

"Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated? Children writhing on the pike?"

Bet you didn't know you could vote for that stuff.

Would I have to supply my own pike and would there be a limit on the number of pikes?

jus askin jus askin

August · 01-15-11, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Would I have to supply my own pike and would there be a limit on the number of pikes?

jus askin jus askin

"Sgt. Sisk: Ladies and gentlemen, our suspect is not human. He is at home in the bush. Shoot to kill. Any questions?
Mob Member: Oh, yeah, yeah, I got a question there. When do we get to light our torches?
Sgt. Sisk: When it gets dark.
Mob Member: Ah, I see. Oh, hey, I got another question there. Suppose, hypothetically, you know, a guy had already lit his torch. I mean, it'd be cool if he could just keep it lit, huh?
Sgt. Sisk: Yes.
Mob Member: Oh, excellent. Excellent.
Sgt. Sisk: Now, if there are no more questions...
Mob Member: Oh, hey, hey, hey, I got another question. Hey, uh, if one part of the mob gets separated from another part of the mob, shouldn't there be a place that we can get together? Maybe a secret place the two mobs could reunite, and we'd be a big mob again.
Sgt. Sisk: Stay with the mob.
Mob Member: Stay with the mob. All right.
Sgt. Sisk: Right.
Mob Member: Hey, hey, hey, I got another question. Hey, uh, doesn't this guy deserve a fair trial?
Sgt. Sisk: You - back of the mob!
Mob Member: "Back of the mob"? What? This is my spot! I came early!
Sgt. Sisk: Okay, *out* of the mob!
Mob Member: Ah, this mob blows. "

Aramike · 01-13-11, 09:34 PM

Here's my take, for what it's worth:

Speech shouldn't be abridged, I agree wholeheartedly with the Constitution on that one. We also have laws against conspiracy, accessory, etc so that covers those who would intentionally try to incite violence through speech.

Should there be more laws put in place? Nope - there are literally thousands and thousands of politicians, pundits, advocates, lobbyists, etc. engaging in political vitriol daily - and hardly any violence has occurred as a result (the latest incident was NOT motivated by such speech).

We scream loud and shout over each other because we can, it's part of the way of a free society built upon discourse. A part of me suspects that should such speech be repressed, an outlet will be gone perhaps leading to more violence, but that's just speculative.

In the final analysis there has been acts of violence in response to speech and policy for as long as there's been speech and policy. Those acts are thankfully rare. Nutjobs will be nutjobs regardless. Letting our lowest common denominators force a free society into even a mild repression of its most fundamental right should be out of the question.

01-13-11, 08:50 PM	#1
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Wow Takeda - can you link some info on Jefferson that shows that? I have never heard it before and am interested where that data is. I do agree with your point - its going to happen. Its unfortunate - but its not the cause of violence. IF - God forfend - IF civilians take up arms against the government, it will be because the government has failed the people, not because of some extremist on either side telling people to do it. Tater - Congress and the Judiciary threw out "free speech" when they got involved in allowing Congress to try and institute incumbent re-election insurance oops sorry thats election "reform". __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

01-13-11, 09:37 PM	#4
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,228 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	"Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated? Children writhing on the pike?" Bet you didn't know you could vote for that stuff. ...and target icons are nothing. How about coffins? __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-13-11, 09:30 PM	#3
mookiemookie Navy Seal Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 9,404 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 1	"Hatchet faced nutmeg dealer" __________________ They don’t think it be like it is, but it do. Want more U-boat Kaleun portraits for your SH3 Commander Profiles? Download the SH3 Commander Portrait Pack here.

01-13-11, 09:57 PM	#6
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	No, guys, Skybird tells us that it's worse than ever. So forget about President number 2 suggesting President #3 would result in "children writhing on pikes," that was WAY more civil than asking to look at a birth certificate.

01-13-11, 10:13 PM	#8
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	All i have to say is those that lead, or are in leadership positions, need to be mindful of what they say, and how they say it because what they say/ and do, has reaching effects. Those who lead, should do so by example, and aspire to be respected for their abilities, and not due to just their position. As to restricting political speech, im not sure what to think. On one hand, It is after all, illegal to say the word "bomb" in an airport. And those who give the order to do something violent (either directly, or implied), are just as culpable as the person executing the order. On the other hand, the first amendment should not have it's integrity compromised. Once you've made it a bendable, and compromising, it becomes tantamount to putty that will be fixed and formed to fit whatever those in power want it to be. Then, we ALL lose. So i guess it falls back to leadership, and those in leadership positions to rely on tact and to realize their role, and the effect of their words, actions and deeds in the big picture. It's a Pity we have to look to politicans for that. The scumbags.

01-13-11, 09:34 PM	#11
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	Here's my take, for what it's worth: Speech shouldn't be abridged, I agree wholeheartedly with the Constitution on that one. We also have laws against conspiracy, accessory, etc so that covers those who would intentionally try to incite violence through speech. Should there be more laws put in place? Nope - there are literally thousands and thousands of politicians, pundits, advocates, lobbyists, etc. engaging in political vitriol daily - and hardly any violence has occurred as a result (the latest incident was NOT motivated by such speech). We scream loud and shout over each other because we can, it's part of the way of a free society built upon discourse. A part of me suspects that should such speech be repressed, an outlet will be gone perhaps leading to more violence, but that's just speculative. In the final analysis there has been acts of violence in response to speech and policy for as long as there's been speech and policy. Those acts are thankfully rare. Nutjobs will be nutjobs regardless. Letting our lowest common denominators force a free society into even a mild repression of its most fundamental right should be out of the question.