Restricting Violent Speech - Page 2

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!!

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

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.

Sailor Steve · 01-13-11, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

What part of "Congress shall make no law" do the idiots in Washington have trouble understanding?

And yet it's against the law to threaten the life of any public official.

On the other hand the much-maligned-by-the-Right Justice Hugo Black used to use that exact same "What part of..." phrase when challenged on Separation.

After watching the YouTube clip (and several others), I stumbled upon some clips from the wonderful John Adams miniseries. One of them was of President Adams and Vice-President Jefferson discussing the Sedition Act of 1798, which actually made it illegal to write anything negative about the President.

01-13-11, 09:30 PM	#1
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, 09:37 PM	#2
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,233 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.

01-13-11, 09:34 PM	#5
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.