Liste des Groupes |
In article <v2o7bi$1tkcc$1@dont-email.me>,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 or that there's no valid reason it applies here. Saying that only facts were spoken -- even with a laugh track -- is inconsequential.
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/23/2024 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:And expanding on what I said, if you make truth illegal because you'veIn article <v2ns6e$1rgqc$1@dont-email.me>,>
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 5/22/2024 12:57 PM, Rhino wrote:>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.
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!"
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.