"I'm gonna kill you!"

[Mott the Hoople]

Classic failing argument. You certainly CAN yell fire in a crowded theater. It only becomes illegal if there is in fact, no fire. And only then if you manage to incite a panic/riot.

Not that that argument has anything to do with the point you're trying to bring across, since inciting hate speech (what you're inferring is being said, though thats certainly subjective) does not directly result in the conclusions of violence. Yelling fire, subsequently cuasing a panic, does.

Really? Study some history. Who do you think were some of the first people they hanged after the Nuremburg trials? The propagandist who promoted the final solution that resulted in the deaths of 14 million people.

Are you trying to tell me that if propagandist in this nation succesfully advocate violence, illegal violence, that they should not be held accountable? There may be freedom of speech in this nation but there is also accountability. You your self emphasized my point that someone who would yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, when there was no fire, that resulted in panic and riot, then that person should be held accountable for their act. Is that not also true of a propagandist who advocates violence against others if acts of violence were to occur as a result?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

He also said tyranny would only come to our shores from within.

That is most certainly true. Hell, Lincoln was responsible himself for some of that tyranny. Just ask native Americans (or a southern red neck).

 

[/MSG/]

Really? Study some history. Who do you think were some of the first people they hanged after the Nuremburg trials? The propagandist who promoted the final solution that resulted in the deaths of 14 million people.

Lovely, but irrelevant to our discussion here.

You your self emphasized my point that someone who would yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, when there was no fire, that resulted in panic and riot, then that person should be held accountable for their act. Is that not also true of a propagandist who advocates violence against others if acts of violence were to occur as a result?

That depends. Are they in anyway directly connected (other than inflammitory speech) to any sort of crime or violent action? Because if not, no they are not responsible. That'd be the equivalent of me claiming I invented the wheel because I yelled dragging stuff along the ground was dumb and we need a better system.

 

[/MSG/]

That is most certainly true. Hell, Lincoln was responsible himself for some of that tyranny. Just ask native Americans (or a southern red neck).

Agreed. And they're Indians.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Lovely, but irrelevant to our discussion here.
That depends. Are they in anyway directly connected (other than inflammitory speech) to any sort of crime or violent action? Because if not, no they are not responsible. That'd be the equivalent of me claiming I invented the wheel because I yelled dragging stuff along the ground was dumb and we need a better system.

Well that's what I was asking! It wasn't a rhetorical question dude. Where do we draw the line with this kind of irresponsible or even criminal behavior?

 

[/MSG/]

Well that's what I was asking! It wasn't a rhetorical question dude. Where do we draw the line with this kind of irresponsible or even criminal behavior?

I'm pretty sure I just said it. If I say "Joe, you go murder Mr. Bob. He's asleep from 9-6. He's also deaf so he's easy to sneak up on" I'd be culpable. If I say "Government officials who violate the constitution should be shot", I'm not culpable.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I'm pretty sure I just said it. If I say "Joe, you go murder Mr. Bob. He's asleep from 9-6. He's also deaf so he's easy to sneak up on" I'd be culpable. If I say "Government officials who violate the constitution should be shot", I'm not culpable.

and would that also apply if instead of Bob they identified a group as their victim?

 

[/MSG/]

and would that also apply if instead of Bob they identified a group as their victim?

Are they directly involved in the execution of violence? Not merely advocating it.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Are they directly involved in the execution of violence? Not merely advocating it.

No. I'm using the case of the Nazi propagandist. They were not directly involved with the final solution. They advocated it and publicaly promoted it through the public media of Germany and 14 million people died as a result. They were hanged for their behavior and considering the enormity of it, rightfully so. The question for us though, is where do we place the line? At what point does advocating violence against individuals or groups of people becomes a crime?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So I was right.

How are those veteran's benefits working for you?

You are accepting that tainted government money, aren't you?

typical moron. speaking about shit you don't know. There's a reason why there are so many former military part of the 3%ers.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Really? Study some history. Who do you think were some of the first people they hanged after the Nuremburg trials? The propagandist who promoted the final solution that resulted in the deaths of 14 million people.

Are you trying to tell me that if propagandist in this nation succesfully advocate violence, illegal violence, that they should not be held accountable? There may be freedom of speech in this nation but there is also accountability. You your self emphasized my point that someone who would yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, when there was no fire, that resulted in panic and riot, then that person should be held accountable for their act. Is that not also true of a propagandist who advocates violence against others if acts of violence were to occur as a result?

propaganda is a government sponsored PSA.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well that's what I was asking! It wasn't a rhetorical question dude. Where do we draw the line with this kind of irresponsible or even criminal behavior?

does someone get hurt?

 

[Good Luck]

Why don't you go into a crowded theater and yell "Fire!" and see how well that line of bull shit sells with the judge.

You're right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins pal.

Where do we draw the line in the sand at their advocating criminal violence?

What you are trying to define as "advocating criminal violence" and yelling fire in a crowded theater are quite far apart, pal.

Where the danger lies, and where I step up to the plate and say "Fuck that!" is when assholes like you want to redefine where to place the line that divides free speech from criminal speech. IF the various shows you mentioned, indeed, cross the line to where they are actually fomenting violence, THEN you might have a point. Except they don't cross that line, so you resort to inuendo about "thinly veiled" and "We even have examples of how their rhetoric has helped provoke unstable and irrartional people to commit violence." And using that, you want to redraw the line. Yea, right, and in the late 60s they claimed to have examples of how the Bugs Bunny, Road Runner show provoked violence in children. Even took it off the air for a year. Fucking brain dead liberals.

In short, you are full of shit as is your call to redefine the line between free speech and criminal speech. Your kind, if allowed, will push that line more and more in favor of "agree with us or STFU, (or go to jail.)" Don't like what we have to say, tough fucking shit, asshole. I'll say what the fuck I want when the fuck I want and I will be responsible for any consequences of what I have to say, criminal or otherwise. Too bad for assholes like you, I am smart enough to avoid criminal speech.

To issue any kind of threat of violence against politicians - that is just flat assed stupid in SO many ways. I don't support it in the least. But, at the same time, I will oppose when others use such behavior as an excuse to go after other kinds of free speech.

 

[Minister of Truth]

That is most certainly true. Hell, Lincoln was responsible himself for some of that tyranny. Just ask native Americans (or a southern red neck).

Yeah, fucking rednecks...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What you are trying to define as "advocating criminal violence" and yelling fire in a crowded theater are quite far apart, pal.

Where the danger lies, and where I step up to the plate and say "Fuck that!" is when assholes like you want to redefine where to place the line that divides free speech from criminal speech. IF the various shows you mentioned, indeed, cross the line to where they are actually fomenting violence, THEN you might have a point. Except they don't cross that line, so you resort to inuendo about "thinly veiled" and "We even have examples of how their rhetoric has helped provoke unstable and irrartional people to commit violence." And using that, you want to redraw the line. Yea, right, and in the late 60s they claimed to have examples of how the Bugs Bunny, Road Runner show provoked violence in children. Even took it off the air for a year. Fucking brain dead liberals.

In short, you are full of shit as is your call to redefine the line between free speech and criminal speech. Your kind, if allowed, will push that line more and more in favor of "agree with us or STFU, (or go to jail.)" Don't like what we have to say, tough fucking shit, asshole. I'll say what the fuck I want when the fuck I want and I will be responsible for any consequences of what I have to say, criminal or otherwise. Too bad for assholes like you, I am smart enough to avoid criminal speech.

To issue any kind of threat of violence against politicians - that is just flat assed stupid in SO many ways. I don't support it in the least. But, at the same time, I will oppose when others use such behavior as an excuse to go after other kinds of free speech.

So what your saying then is that it's ok for some nut job on the radio to advocate killing abortion doctors and when some other nut job kills abortion doctors that they shouldn't be held accountable? Oh that's just great. It's nice to know you believe in freedom of speech but that you don't believe people aren't responsible for what they say. Nice. Real nice.

 

[Conservative]

What you are trying to define as "advocating criminal violence" and yelling fire in a crowded theater are quite far apart, pal.

Where the danger lies, and where I step up to the plate and say "Fuck that!" is when assholes like you want to redefine where to place the line that divides free speech from criminal speech. IF the various shows you mentioned, indeed, cross the line to where they are actually fomenting violence, THEN you might have a point. Except they don't cross that line, so you resort to inuendo about "thinly veiled" and "We even have examples of how their rhetoric has helped provoke unstable and irrartional people to commit violence." And using that, you want to redraw the line. Yea, right, and in the late 60s they claimed to have examples of how the Bugs Bunny, Road Runner show provoked violence in children. Even took it off the air for a year. Fucking brain dead liberals.

In short, you are full of shit as is your call to redefine the line between free speech and criminal speech. Your kind, if allowed, will push that line more and more in favor of "agree with us or STFU, (or go to jail.)" Don't like what we have to say, tough fucking shit, asshole. I'll say what the fuck I want when the fuck I want and I will be responsible for any consequences of what I have to say, criminal or otherwise. Too bad for assholes like you, I am smart enough to avoid criminal speech.

To issue any kind of threat of violence against politicians - that is just flat assed stupid in SO many ways. I don't support it in the least. But, at the same time, I will oppose when others use such behavior as an excuse to go after other kinds of free speech.

They took cartoons off the air? I didn't know that. When?

 

[Good Luck]

So what your saying then is that it's ok for some nut job on the radio to advocate killing abortion doctors and when some other nut job kills abortion doctors that they shouldn't be held accountable? Oh that's just great. It's nice to know you believe in freedom of speech but that you don't believe people aren't responsible for what they say. Nice. Real nice.

Which radio personality advocated killing abortion doctors, and when? Who murdered which abortion doctor as a result of these radio meanderings? IF it actually happened (as opposed to loose "lets make shit up to support our anti-liberty policies) then the person(s) who so advocated murder should, indeed be held accountable.

Or is this another piece of liberal "well, they didn't SAY it, but sure as heck HINTED at it." bullshit?

Until/unless you can show specifics, it's all nothing more than the typical allegation/assumption "right wing speech is dangerous" of the far left in defense of their long term big-government-sees-(and controls)-all agenda.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

How about the Oaf Keepers, who advocate wilful disobedience to orders whenever one of their nutball "members" decides his superior officer's command is unconstitutional?

 

[Good Luck]

They took cartoons off the air? I didn't know that. When?

They took the Bugs Bunny Road Runner Hour off the air due to it's "Violence". You know, Wiley Coyote getting whomped with his own giant rocks, Elmer getting shot with his own shotgun, Daffy having his beak blown off, etc.

I forget whether it was 68 or 69. I know it wasn't 67 because I was home from Vietnam, and had been a basic training DI for a while when it was announced. I thought it was stupid then, and I still think it was stupid. But it was the beginning of modern liberal thought (if you can call what they use for cognitive processes "thought".

 

[USFREEDOM911]

They took the Bugs Bunny Road Runner Hour off the air due to it's "Violence". You know, Wiley Coyote getting whomped with his own giant rocks, Elmer getting shot with his own shotgun, Daffy having his beak blown off, etc.

I forget whether it was 68 or 69. I know it wasn't 67 because I was home from Vietnam, and had been a basic training DI for a while when it was announced. I thought it was stupid then, and I still think it was stupid. But it was the beginning of modern liberal thought (if you can call what they use for cognitive processes "thought".

The idea that TV influences how children are going to act, is asinine.
Some kids maybe; but for the most, it's just entertainment..
If it had such an influence; then I wouild like someone to explain why the majority of youth, from the 50's and early 60's, didn't grow up to be cowboys (westerns), perfect parents (sitcoms), etc.