Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
In article <v2q9me$2ce49$1@dont-email.me>,This isn't about responsibility for an action, or even for hate. It's about whether "incitement to hate" -- regardless of whether anyone's thus incited -- is a recognizable concept we can generally identify.
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/23/2024 10:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:On May 23, 2024 at 7:29:19 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Cattle can be incited to action.>>>So, if you mean to defend against this "incitement of hatred"Well, we're talking about Germany here not America, so 'unconstitutional'
charge, you'll have to argue either that the very concept is
unconstitutional
isn't on the table, but yes, if this kind of law were to be passed here,
it would absolutely without question be unconstitutional.
or that there's no valid reason it applies here.There's no valid reason it should apply anywhere.
Yet "incitement to hate" is a thing you recognize and deplore. (Isn't
it?)
No.
Then I venture that you're purer than most. How do you characterize,
e.g., a speech alleging that Jews drink the blood of infants? Isn't
there a key difference to saying, e.g., Jews are Martians?
Humans are responsible for their own actions. You don't get to duck
responsibility for rioting or hating or whatever by claiming someone
incited you and you became a mindless automaton incapable of independent
thought or action.
If you're hating, it's because you chose to, not because someone incited
you.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.