An experiment in forum perception

[RightyTighty]

However, the founders did intend for political speech to be absolutely protected.

So, what in the video was wrong?

Ask someone who watched it. And their concern was politics - not kiddy porn.

There is no kiddy porn in the video I posted.

Good. It's not protected free speech (even to just collect it).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

I believe even fake child porn (like animations) is illegal. No "rights" are violated. Should it be or not be?

No, it's legal (it's already been tested in the Supreme Court) as is using immature looking adults. Congress tried to ban it but the SC said it was overly broad and poorly defined.

 

[yiostheoy]

Outstanding video!

Did you watch all 8 minutes of it then ?!

 

[RightyTighty]

Should we, as individuals, take it into our own hand to silence it, violently if necessary? That is the question being posed.

No (and good luck trying).

 

[Coyote]

The hell it can't. There are all kinds of limits, starting with slander and libel.

That is not limiting speech. That is punishing slander and liable, which are criminal behavior.

Yes it IS limiting free speech. It's criminalizing certain types of free speech.

So, who determined what kind of criminal speech liable and slander was? Was it the people who were slandered? The people who slandered someone else? How did it come about that slander and liable were determined to be a criminal act (in fact, they are a civil violation I think).

How are any criminal violations determined?

Slander and libel cause damage - the bar is actually pretty high for it in order to protect free speech.

Exactly. So the video discusses the limitations of certain groups of people's speech on the basis of free speech zones, hate speech (again, this is the heart of the real issue here) and speech deemed offensive.

Do they get to determine that? Does the public at large? Or are there standards and procedures that must be met in order for one group of people to silence another?

I think there's a lot of grey area and usually courts rule in favor of free speech.

Is it limitations of "certain groups of people" or limitations of certain types of speech?

Speech that is deemed offensive...should not be banned based on that alone - same with hate speech.

On the other hand - all people's rights are equal in a public area. A person minding his own business should not be confronted and verbally assaulted by another.

 

[Darkwind]

However, the founders did intend for political speech to be absolutely protected.

So, what in the video was wrong?

Ask someone who watched it. And their concern was politics - not kiddy porn.

There is no kiddy porn in the video I posted.

Good. It's not protected free speech (even to just collect it).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

Someone collects kiddy porn off the Internet and doesn't share it (long after the crime was committed by others). What's the harm to anyone, to the child? There is none but it's still a crime. Did the Founders envision that you couldn't outlaw that? Ah, no.

The harm is real and immediate. If you cannot see that child pornography is a physical crime in act and distribution, I cannot help you to understand. It is, however; not speech.

 

[RightyTighty]

However, the founders did intend for political speech to be absolutely protected.

So, what in the video was wrong?

Ask someone who watched it. And their concern was politics - not kiddy porn.

There is no kiddy porn in the video I posted.

Good. It's not protected free speech (even to just collect it).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

If you are showing how to rob a bank, you are accessory, kid, no two ways about it.

Probably not.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

However, the founders did intend for political speech to be absolutely protected.

So, what in the video was wrong?

Ask someone who watched it. And their concern was politics - not kiddy porn.

There is no kiddy porn in the video I posted.

Good. It's not protected free speech (even to just collect it).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

I believe even fake child porn (like animations) is illegal. No "rights" are violated. Should it be or not be?

I cringe to say anything positive on this subject, but if no actual human is harmed, it should not be. Then you are reaching into the art category, and though you may be disgusted by particular art, there is no harm to actual persons, other than possibly providing impetus to a perverted thought pattern.

 

[Darkwind]

Should we, as individuals, take it into our own hand to silence it, violently if necessary? That is the question being posed.

No (and good luck trying).

I think that until you watch the video and get a sense of what is being discussed here, there isn't much use furthering the discussion with you.

 

[Coyote]

Actually....in a biological sense...mobs are an interesting phenomenum. They take on a life of their own and drive people to act in ways they never would as individuals. Kind of like dog packs.

But you are right - individuals are responsible for their own behavior - and that would include the individuals doing the inciting in some cases.

Why?

Because they are responsible for their actions if their intent was to incite. Why are they exempt from responsibility?

Because the individual makes its own decision whether or not to act upon an idea.

Yes. And they are charged appropriately.

So...if someone convinces another to murder a third party - should he be charged?

Again, the "convincing" is the issue. An individual makes its own decisions.

True, the individual makes its own decision but - that doesn't mean those who collude in the act carry no responsibility.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The discussion will center around free speech vs hate speech.

Here is the impetus for the discussion. I will not lead up to the discussion with My thoughts because this is an experiment on YOUR thoughts.



Go....

If you want free speech, you have to tolerate all speech including what you might consider hate speech. The only limitation I would impose is impinging on some one else's right to free speech by shouting him down or otherwise preventing people from hearing him. Of course, with rights come responsibility so if you incite some one to commit a crime, you should be charge as an accessory to that crime if an ordinarily prudent person would believe you speech was intended to incite that crime; in other words, if there is a doubt, send it to a jury.

Yes. So, rioting to prevent speech would be wrong. Shouting down a speaker would be wrong. So, the video examines the motives on why people would want to limit a persons speech the tactics they use to go about it.

But why would some one commit so strongly to an ideology that they would want to try to prevent others from speaking against it?

 

[RightyTighty]

Ask someone who watched it. And their concern was politics - not kiddy porn.

There is no kiddy porn in the video I posted.

Good. It's not protected free speech (even to just collect it).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

Someone collects kiddy porn off the Internet and doesn't share it (long after the crime was committed by others). What's the harm to anyone, to the child? There is none but it's still a crime. Did the Founders envision that you couldn't outlaw that? Ah, no.

The harm is real and immediate. If you cannot see that child pornography is a physical crime in act and distribution, I cannot help you to understand. It is, however; not speech.

An old naked picture (even a prurient one) of a child long grown up in the collection of a collector isn't hurting anyone. Taking the picture might have been a crime but that's like saying pictures of 9-11 hurt those who died in 9-11(or their survivors) so let's not have any, which is nonsense.

 

[yiostheoy]

That is not limiting speech. That is punishing slander and liable, which are criminal behavior.

Yes it IS limiting free speech. It's criminalizing certain types of free speech.

So, who determined what kind of criminal speech liable and slander was? Was it the people who were slandered? The people who slandered someone else? How did it come about that slander and liable were determined to be a criminal act (in fact, they are a civil violation I think).

How are any criminal violations determined?

Slander and libel cause damage - the bar is actually pretty high for it in order to protect free speech.

Exactly. So the video discusses the limitations of certain groups of people's speech on the basis of free speech zones, hate speech (again, this is the heart of the real issue here) and speech deemed offensive.

Do they get to determine that? Does the public at large? Or are there standards and procedures that must be met in order for one group of people to silence another?

I think there's a lot of grey area and usually courts rule in favor of free speech.

Is it limitations of "certain groups of people" or limitations of certain types of speech?

Speech that is deemed offensive...should not be banned based on that alone - same with hate speech.

On the other hand - all people's rights are equal in a public area. A person minding his own business should not be confronted and verbally assaulted by another.

There have always been limits on free speech.

Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre is likely to cause injury therefore free speech in this instance is limited.

Provoking Negroes by calling them the N-word has been held in many courts to be offensive enough to construe it as a verbal assault and therefore free speech in this instance is limited as well.

So if you are looking for a fight and you use a pejorative personal word to do it then you will be deemed in court to have launched the first assault. Not a good idea.

Like Disney said in Bambi, if you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all.

 

[Darkwind]

Ask someone who watched it. And their concern was politics - not kiddy porn.

There is no kiddy porn in the video I posted.

Good. It's not protected free speech (even to just collect it).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

I believe even fake child porn (like animations) is illegal. No "rights" are violated. Should it be or not be?

I cringe to say anything positive on this subject, but if no actual human is harmed, it should not be. Then you are reaching into the art category, and though you may be disgusted by particular art, there is no harm to actual persons, other than possibly providing impetus to a perverted thought pattern.

I happen to agree. There are cultures that would depict what we deem children in sexual situations and consider it the norm; however that would not constitute pornography. The point though is that we don't allow mobs to determine who has free speech and who does not. We do not allow mobs or groups of individuals to determine the moral standard of what speech constitutes hate speech. We do not deem 'offense' as hate speech.

 

[Coyote]

Ask someone who watched it. And their concern was politics - not kiddy porn.

There is no kiddy porn in the video I posted.

Good. It's not protected free speech (even to just collect it).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

I believe even fake child porn (like animations) is illegal. No "rights" are violated. Should it be or not be?

I cringe to say anything positive on this subject, but if no actual human is harmed, it should not be. Then you are reaching into the art category, and though you may be disgusted by particular art, there is no harm to actual persons, other than possibly providing impetus to a perverted thought pattern.

That's also where it gets really dicey in the free speech area. Another example is odious groups like NAMBLA - as long as they don't act on what they promote, they have every right to express their views. Same with KKK, Westboro Baptists etc.

But if they stand on a street corner, in a mob situation and incite them to violence - that's a different story.

 

[RightyTighty]

The discussion will center around free speech vs hate speech.

Here is the impetus for the discussion. I will not lead up to the discussion with My thoughts because this is an experiment on YOUR thoughts.



Go....

If you want free speech, you have to tolerate all speech including what you might consider hate speech. The only limitation I would impose is impinging on some one else's right to free speech by shouting him down or otherwise preventing people from hearing him. Of course, with rights come responsibility so if you incite some one to commit a crime, you should be charge as an accessory to that crime if an ordinarily prudent person would believe you speech was intended to incite that crime; in other words, if there is a doubt, send it to a jury.

Yes. So, rioting to prevent speech would be wrong. Shouting down a speaker would be wrong. So, the video examines the motives on why people would want to limit a persons speech the tactics they use to go about it.

But why would some one commit so strongly to an ideology that they would want to try to prevent others from speaking against it?

Pick a Pope (almost any will do) and check out their thoughts. The gateway to Hell (if you go against the Church).

 

[Darkwind]

Yes it IS limiting free speech. It's criminalizing certain types of free speech.

So, who determined what kind of criminal speech liable and slander was? Was it the people who were slandered? The people who slandered someone else? How did it come about that slander and liable were determined to be a criminal act (in fact, they are a civil violation I think).

How are any criminal violations determined?

Slander and libel cause damage - the bar is actually pretty high for it in order to protect free speech.

Exactly. So the video discusses the limitations of certain groups of people's speech on the basis of free speech zones, hate speech (again, this is the heart of the real issue here) and speech deemed offensive.

Do they get to determine that? Does the public at large? Or are there standards and procedures that must be met in order for one group of people to silence another?

I think there's a lot of grey area and usually courts rule in favor of free speech.

Is it limitations of "certain groups of people" or limitations of certain types of speech?

Speech that is deemed offensive...should not be banned based on that alone - same with hate speech.

On the other hand - all people's rights are equal in a public area. A person minding his own business should not be confronted and verbally assaulted by another.

There have always been limits on free speech.

Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre is likely to cause injury therefore free speech in this instance is limited.

Provoking Negroes by calling them the N-word has been held in many courts to be offensive enough to construe it as a verbal assault and therefore free speech in this instance is limited as well.

Yet, that is wrong and an incorrect ruling. We should never rule speech that causes offense as speech to be limited.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why?

Because they are responsible for their actions if their intent was to incite. Why are they exempt from responsibility?

Because the individual makes its own decision whether or not to act upon an idea.

Yes. And they are charged appropriately.

So...if someone convinces another to murder a third party - should he be charged?

Again, the "convincing" is the issue. An individual makes its own decisions.

A jury can make that decision based on the weight of the evidence.

Unless they can prove that the speaker exercised some Svengali-like influence over the perpetrator, the perpetrator is by all common sense the guilty party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ask someone who watched it. And their concern was politics - not kiddy porn.

There is no kiddy porn in the video I posted.

Good. It's not protected free speech (even to just collect it).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

I believe even fake child porn (like animations) is illegal. No "rights" are violated. Should it be or not be?

I cringe to say anything positive on this subject, but if no actual human is harmed, it should not be. Then you are reaching into the art category, and though you may be disgusted by particular art, there is no harm to actual persons, other than possibly providing impetus to a perverted thought pattern.

Possession of child porn is harmful.

 

[RightyTighty]

There is no kiddy porn in the video I posted.

Good. It's not protected free speech (even to just collect it).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

I believe even fake child porn (like animations) is illegal. No "rights" are violated. Should it be or not be?

I cringe to say anything positive on this subject, but if no actual human is harmed, it should not be. Then you are reaching into the art category, and though you may be disgusted by particular art, there is no harm to actual persons, other than possibly providing impetus to a perverted thought pattern.

That's also where it gets really dicey in the free speech area. Another example is odious groups like NAMBLA - as long as they don't act on what they promote, they have every right to express their views. Same with KKK, Westboro Baptists etc.

But if they stand on a street corner, in a mob situation and incite them to violence - that's a different story.

Indeed.

 

[Coyote]

There is no kiddy porn in the video I posted.

Good. It's not protected free speech (even to just collect it).

It is not speech at all. It is a crime, a physical crime against a child, and the distributors of such are accessories to that physical crime. I can show all the fake bank robberies I want as a matter of free speech. I can even film an actual robbery and if I'm not a participant to the physical harm done, I have that right to free speech. When I am the driver of the get away car, even though I did not hold anyone up, I am an accessory to that crime (a physical crime) and that is not covered under free speech.

I believe even fake child porn (like animations) is illegal. No "rights" are violated. Should it be or not be?

I cringe to say anything positive on this subject, but if no actual human is harmed, it should not be. Then you are reaching into the art category, and though you may be disgusted by particular art, there is no harm to actual persons, other than possibly providing impetus to a perverted thought pattern.

I happen to agree. There are cultures that would depict what we deem children in sexual situations and consider it the norm; however that would not constitute pornography. The point though is that we don't allow mobs to determine who has free speech and who does not. We do not allow mobs or groups of individuals to determine the moral standard of what speech constitutes hate speech. We do not deem 'offense' as hate speech.

I actually agree until it crosses the line into inciting violence.

I don't agree with "hate speech" laws other than that for exactly that reason - who determines it? Mob rule.