Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
I don't see how we could legitimately infringe upon free speech on this subject. Those speaking out are not responsible for the irrational reactions of others.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
No...Free Speech and freedom of religion is part of the fabric of our country.
We have free speech to be able to say controversial things without fear of arrest. We don't have free speech to talk about trivial things.
Libertarian and Atheist...wow I'm a hated man.
What about Comedians then when they make Fun of People and races? Whats Next.....I know what you are thinking?
I don't think the case is quite so bad. We try to infer intent all the time in other situations in order to determine the extent of a particular crime. For example: a man fires a gun through a wall into a room in which he knows another man is standing. The other man is killed. We have at least four possibilities:Originally Posted by lizzie
1) The gun went off accidentally, and the man therefore had no intent to cause harm.
2) The gun was fired deliberately, but the man who pulled the trigger thought the bullet wouldn't go through the drywall, or some other demonstrably absurd belief.
3) The gun was fired deliberately, but the man who pulled the trigger only intended to scare the other man.
4) The gun was fired deliberately, and the man who pulled the trigger intended to kill the other man.
And in fact, these possibilities just scratch the surface. However, there is a clear difference between what we do with the man holding the gun that killed victim under each situation.
It would be very easy to distinguish a case of me insulting someone else but not intending to incite violence vs. me lying about person A to incite person B to do violence on A. Your objection seems to rely on us being unable to form a theory of someone's mind based on available evidence. If such a principle were to hold, there would be no difference between what we'd do to the man who was holding the gun in situations 1-4, above. Ergo, unless you are prepared to claim that either murderers should walk free or people who accidentally shoot others (the point being, the case is truly accidental) should receive the same penalty as a murderer, your objection is specious.
"The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión
"Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn
People need to learn how to deal with others not kowtowing to their beliefs like adults.
Last edited by Quag; 09-18-12 at 06:48 AM.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
It's not intended to be an analogy. It's intended to show that intent can be, and should be, discerned when deciding on many types of crime. There was an objection that seemed to be based on the notion that we would overburden our epistemic faculties to try to determine intent. I was pointing out that this is almost certainly wrong, and moreover, it is necessary to determine intent to avoid perpetrating miscarriages of justice.Originally Posted by Quag
Again...I haven't been discussing the film that has led to such furor. I've been discussing general principles, abstracted from specific situations. I think there are other reasons to suppose that incitement to violence should be considered a crime.