Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
On May 24, 2024 at 12:46:34 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Oh, you're asking if such a law would be *moral*. Ask someone else...
On 5/24/2024 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:So for you, all it takes is a legislature's say so and freedom of speech isIn article <v2qa76$2ce49$2@dont-email.me>,>
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/23/2024 11:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:On May 23, 2024 at 7:29:19 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 5/23/2024 6:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <v2obln$1ubc9$1@dont-email.me>,
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/23/2024 4:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <v2o7bi$1tkcc$1@dont-email.me>,
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 5/23/2024 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <v2ns6e$1rgqc$1@dont-email.me>,
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 5/22/2024 12:57 PM, Rhino wrote:A large crowd in front of Trump Tower chanting "New York hates you!">>>Well, we're talking about Germany here not America, so 'unconstitutional'>>>>Once again, Leo Kearse hits it out of the park:>
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5uW1Htq7XU [10 minutes]
I listened to enough to hear the claim that truth is a defense
against a charge of "incitement to hatred" ...which, obviously,
it isn't.
As I said, the truth is now illegal.
>
But neither should citing the government's own crime statistics in
a discussion about public policy be considered "incitement to hatred"
merely because it undermines the government's immigration agenda.
As I said, an "incitement to hatred" needn't carry any lie.
And expanding on what I said, if you make truth illegal because
you've created circumstances that allow you to claim it leads to some
nebulous concept of 'hatred', then you've successfully muzzled all
political opposition and have created a dictatorial society where
anyone who speaks against you is criminalized.
>
And this all comes from the people who are constantly bleating about
the need to "protect muh democracy!"
There are enough laws, rules, regulations, and statutes in the world
to allow anyone to be prosecuted for (or exonerated of) anything. The
ultimate trial arena is always in the mind of the ultimate presiding
judge. So, if you mean to defend against this "incitement of hatred"
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?) How is its subjectivity different from that of pornography?
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1781169843351298050/vid/avc1/356x270/l
HOICO1gYm5AAqF8.mp4?tag=14
>
Incitement to hate? Should they all be arrested?
I don't understand what I'm seeing/hearing there.
If there's a law against expression of hate for an individual, sure?
legitimately wiped off the map?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.