JayB Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 -This guy clearly has more in common with John Hinkley than John Wilkes Booth. -In a free society there are innumerable modes of expression that might inspire a disturbed individual to engage in acts of violence. Helter Skelter, horror films, novels, video games, ...you name it. There's zero evidence that political repression of these modes of expression will result in anything other than...political repression of these modes of expression. Anyone who thinks that granting the government the power to supervise the modes of discourse, expression, etc that sane adults choose to expose themselves to will deliver any benefit in terms of improved public safety or reduced violence is even crazier than the nutjob that inspired this thread. Granting whichever political party has the upper hand at the moment the capacity to prosecute their rivals for political speech that they find too extreme for their liking under the pretext of promoting public safety is something that should make every true liberal shudder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Also, despite Billkook's flattering habit of continually mistating my opinions, no one has called for any new restrictions on speech. I called for an increased government scrutiny on violent threats by politicians and pundits. Anyone put up with violent threats in their home? No? Why do we put up with it as part of the public discourse, then? It's been long illegal for some very good reasons. Of course, our resident Kook would be the last guy to seek to restrict the behavior he occasionally indulges in on his favorite forums. And if guns were banned, he'd be confined to posting pictures of exploded faces and the like. Frankly, I prefer gun pics, meself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 -This guy clearly has more in common with John Hinkley than John Wilkes Booth. -In a free society there are innumerable modes of expression that might inspire a disturbed individual to engage in acts of violence. Helter Skelter, horror films, novels, video games, ...you name it. Granting whichever political party has the upper hand at the moment the capacity to prosecute their rivals for political speech that they find too extreme for their liking under the pretext of promoting public safety is something that should make every true liberal shudder. Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 -This guy clearly has more in common with John Hinkley than John Wilkes Booth. -In a free society there are innumerable modes of expression that might inspire a disturbed individual to engage in acts of violence. Helter Skelter, horror films, novels, video games, ...you name it. Granting whichever political party has the upper hand at the moment the capacity to prosecute their rivals for political speech that they find too extreme for their liking under the pretext of promoting public safety is something that should make every true liberal shudder. Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime. Violent threat - you mean like you opining on Spray how someone should have put a bullet in Bush's head? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) -This guy clearly has more in common with John Hinkley than John Wilkes Booth. -In a free society there are innumerable modes of expression that might inspire a disturbed individual to engage in acts of violence. Helter Skelter, horror films, novels, video games, ...you name it. Granting whichever political party has the upper hand at the moment the capacity to prosecute their rivals for political speech that they find too extreme for their liking under the pretext of promoting public safety is something that should make every true liberal shudder. Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime. Violent threat - you mean like you opining on Spray how someone should have put a bullet in Bush's head? Rephrased, but the original post, like yours: not a threat. Grammar is difficult for some, I realize. And the audience size here? What, 10 people, max? Edited January 11, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 -This guy clearly has more in common with John Hinkley than John Wilkes Booth. -In a free society there are innumerable modes of expression that might inspire a disturbed individual to engage in acts of violence. Helter Skelter, horror films, novels, video games, ...you name it. Granting whichever political party has the upper hand at the moment the capacity to prosecute their rivals for political speech that they find too extreme for their liking under the pretext of promoting public safety is something that should make every true liberal shudder. Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime. Violent threat - you mean like you opining on Spray how someone should have put a bullet in Bush's head? Rephrased, but the original post, like yours: not a threat. Grammar is difficult for some, I realize. And the audience size here? What, 10 people, max? Um, yeah, right. You're so full of shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 -This guy clearly has more in common with John Hinkley than John Wilkes Booth. -In a free society there are innumerable modes of expression that might inspire a disturbed individual to engage in acts of violence. Helter Skelter, horror films, novels, video games, ...you name it. Granting whichever political party has the upper hand at the moment the capacity to prosecute their rivals for political speech that they find too extreme for their liking under the pretext of promoting public safety is something that should make every true liberal shudder. Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime. Exactly. Which is why we have a centuries old body of law that defines precisely what they are, and a giant enforcement apparatus responsible for prosecuting those who break them. The next time a crazy guy is supposedly inspired to murder by after exposure to an artist, novelist, etc lets all clamor to have the Feds ramp up their scrutiny and prosecution of artists, novelists, etc, shall we? Ivan is right. You wanna pursue this one in any court other than the court of public opinion - good luck. Seems to me that using this guys actions as a pretext with which to have the Federal Government enforce a set of speech codes that go well beyond the set of standards established for threats, incitement, etc will go absolutely nowhere, but by all means - give it the old college try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 -This guy clearly has more in common with John Hinkley than John Wilkes Booth. -In a free society there are innumerable modes of expression that might inspire a disturbed individual to engage in acts of violence. Helter Skelter, horror films, novels, video games, ...you name it. Granting whichever political party has the upper hand at the moment the capacity to prosecute their rivals for political speech that they find too extreme for their liking under the pretext of promoting public safety is something that should make every true liberal shudder. Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime. Violent threat - you mean like you opining on Spray how someone should have put a bullet in Bush's head? What a stupid thing to say...then Cheney would have been pres..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 -This guy clearly has more in common with John Hinkley than John Wilkes Booth. -In a free society there are innumerable modes of expression that might inspire a disturbed individual to engage in acts of violence. Helter Skelter, horror films, novels, video games, ...you name it. There's zero evidence that political repression of these modes of expression will result in anything other than...political repression of these modes of expression. Anyone who thinks that granting the government the power to supervise the modes of discourse, expression, etc that sane adults choose to expose themselves to will deliver any benefit in terms of improved public safety or reduced violence is even crazier than the nutjob that inspired this thread. Granting whichever political party has the upper hand at the moment the capacity to prosecute their rivals for political speech that they find too extreme for their liking under the pretext of promoting public safety is something that should make every true liberal shudder. A little late for your crocodile tears, pal. The left has been subject to the attention of the security state and witch hunts "under the pretext of promoting public safety" forever. Hypocrite! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 A little late for your crocodile tears, pal. The left has been subject to the attention of the security state and witch hunts "under the pretext of promoting public safety" forever. Hypocrite! Wow! "Forever"?!?!?! That's like a really long time. And to think, Obama heads up this security state! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) -This guy clearly has more in common with John Hinkley than John Wilkes Booth. -In a free society there are innumerable modes of expression that might inspire a disturbed individual to engage in acts of violence. Helter Skelter, horror films, novels, video games, ...you name it. Granting whichever political party has the upper hand at the moment the capacity to prosecute their rivals for political speech that they find too extreme for their liking under the pretext of promoting public safety is something that should make every true liberal shudder. Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime. Exactly. Which is why we have a centuries old body of law that defines precisely what they are, and a giant enforcement apparatus responsible for prosecuting those who break them. The next time a crazy guy is supposedly inspired to murder by after exposure to an artist, novelist, etc lets all clamor to have the Feds ramp up their scrutiny and prosecution of artists, novelists, etc, shall we? Ivan is right. You wanna pursue this one in any court other than the court of public opinion - good luck. Seems to me that using this guys actions as a pretext with which to have the Federal Government enforce a set of speech codes that go well beyond the set of standards established for threats, incitement, etc will go absolutely nowhere, but by all means - give it the old college try. You apparently believe that politicians and pundits deserve immunity, unlike the rest of us, because they've got a microphone and a large audience...precisely the reasons why we should not tolerate this kind of criminal speech from these folks. Threat of an investigation is usually enough to get a public figure to tone it down a bit. Public rejection of the message is, of course, another. Edited January 11, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 -In a free society there are innumerable modes of expression that might inspire a disturbed individual to engage in acts of violence. Helter Skelter, horror films, novels, video games, ...you name it. Or numerous individuals engaging in dozens of acts of violence inspired by an identical mode of expression in the last three years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 -In a free society there are innumerable modes of expression that might inspire a disturbed individual to engage in acts of violence. Helter Skelter, horror films, novels, video games, ...you name it. Or numerous individuals engaging in dozens of acts of violence inspired by an identical mode of expression in the last three years. BTW, what should happen to these perpetrators, should they be found guilty in a court of law? Will they be excused by libtards for having a bad childhood, a genetic flaw, not enough hugs from Mommie, etc? Just curious, Prole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 You apparently have zero experience with the criminal justice system. It shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 -This guy clearly has more in common with John Hinkley than John Wilkes Booth. -In a free society there are innumerable modes of expression that might inspire a disturbed individual to engage in acts of violence. Helter Skelter, horror films, novels, video games, ...you name it. Granting whichever political party has the upper hand at the moment the capacity to prosecute their rivals for political speech that they find too extreme for their liking under the pretext of promoting public safety is something that should make every true liberal shudder. Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime. Exactly. Which is why we have a centuries old body of law that defines precisely what they are, and a giant enforcement apparatus responsible for prosecuting those who break them. The next time a crazy guy is supposedly inspired to murder by after exposure to an artist, novelist, etc lets all clamor to have the Feds ramp up their scrutiny and prosecution of artists, novelists, etc, shall we? Ivan is right. You wanna pursue this one in any court other than the court of public opinion - good luck. Seems to me that using this guys actions as a pretext with which to have the Federal Government enforce a set of speech codes that go well beyond the set of standards established for threats, incitement, etc will go absolutely nowhere, but by all means - give it the old college try. You apparently believe that politicians and pundits deserve immunity, unlike the rest of us, because they've got a microphone and a large audience...precisely the reasons why we should not tolerate this kind of criminal speech from these folks. Threat of an investigation is usually enough to get a public figure to tone it down a bit. Public rejection of the message is, of course, another. Actually I believe the reason they aren't being investigated or prosecuted is that their speech doesn't meet the relevant legal thresholds for incitement, etc. If you want to exploit some crazy guy shooting a member of congress and several other people to promote your own political ends, as a "strategy" to discredit things like limited government, go nuts. I actually hope that all of the other "progressives" uncritically adopt this strategy and make it a central focus of all of their political activities from this point forward. Have at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 -This guy clearly has more in common with John Hinkley than John Wilkes Booth. -In a free society there are innumerable modes of expression that might inspire a disturbed individual to engage in acts of violence. Helter Skelter, horror films, novels, video games, ...you name it. Granting whichever political party has the upper hand at the moment the capacity to prosecute their rivals for political speech that they find too extreme for their liking under the pretext of promoting public safety is something that should make every true liberal shudder. Again, violent threats are not protected speech. They have long been a crime. Exactly. Which is why we have a centuries old body of law that defines precisely what they are, and a giant enforcement apparatus responsible for prosecuting those who break them. The next time a crazy guy is supposedly inspired to murder by after exposure to an artist, novelist, etc lets all clamor to have the Feds ramp up their scrutiny and prosecution of artists, novelists, etc, shall we? Ivan is right. You wanna pursue this one in any court other than the court of public opinion - good luck. Seems to me that using this guys actions as a pretext with which to have the Federal Government enforce a set of speech codes that go well beyond the set of standards established for threats, incitement, etc will go absolutely nowhere, but by all means - give it the old college try. You apparently believe that politicians and pundits deserve immunity, unlike the rest of us, because they've got a microphone and a large audience...precisely the reasons why we should not tolerate this kind of criminal speech from these folks. Threat of an investigation is usually enough to get a public figure to tone it down a bit. Public rejection of the message is, of course, another. Actually I believe the reason they aren't being investigated or prosecuted is that their speech doesn't meet the relevant legal thresholds for incitement, etc. If you want to exploit some crazy guy shooting a member of congress and several other people to promote your own political ends, as a "strategy" to discredit things like limited government, go nuts. I actually hope that all of the other "progressives" uncritically adopt this strategy and make it a central focus of all of their political activities from this point forward. Have at it. Nope, but nice try. No one has suggested squelching anyone's political views...just the threats of violence. Not hard to read my statements correctly...for the rest of us, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) BTW, anyone actually think the tea bagger movement is about 'limited government'? Ask them about ending the drug war and cutting the military budget. The tea bagger movement is about reaping the benefits of a liberal society without paying the taxes. It's about wealth concentration, with a side of racism and homophobia for spice. It's about SUPPORTING THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! (without the amendments) Libertarians? Hardly. Edited January 11, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Sorry Jay, simply regurgitating the "random crazy guy" narrative isn't going to fly. [video:youtube] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 an honest qeustion, as i don't know much about it, but how have the trials of prominent rwandas who incited their countryment to violence gone? i recall some were still in progress? how sucessful were persecutions of those guys, and to what degree where their statements similiar to anybody here in the usa? it would be nice if we could be a bit more friendly in our discourse here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I think Boehner represents that average tea bagger's viewpoint: in the 80's, he was pulling down 75+K a year (good for back then). His reason for going into politics? He thought his tax bill was too high. (ref: recent New Yorker interview) Not because he wanted to make this country and its environment a better place. Nope. He was already wealthy...and he wanted more...while someone else footed the bill. Hero! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 an honest qeustion, as i don't know much about it, but how have the trials of prominent rwandas who incited their countryment to violence gone? i recall some were still in progress? how sucessful were persecutions of those guys, and to what degree where their statements similiar to anybody here in the usa? it would be nice if we could be a bit more friendly in our discourse here... Mass killing and political assassinations tend to get me a bit riled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I'm on the ACLU's 2nd Amendment Policy Committee. True story LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I'm on the ACLU's 2nd Amendment Policy Committee. True story LOL! You've told us multiple times. Nobody is impressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 an honest qeustion, as i don't know much about it, but how have the trials of prominent rwandas who incited their countryment to violence gone? i recall some were still in progress? how sucessful were persecutions of those guys, and to what degree where their statements similiar to anybody here in the usa? it would be nice if we could be a bit more friendly in our discourse here... the more relevant question is how effective anti-obscenity laws have been in squelching the 8 words you cannot say on radio and television versus the inattention paid to violent threats on very same media. Want a $250K fine every time Howard Stern says 'blowjob'? Go for it. Hey, but if Howard Stern suggests that his listeners take up arms against elected officials...no prob, man! Thanks to a the FCC's obscenity restrictions (ridiculous, but there you are) on speech, the mechanism are already in place to 'tone down' the threats the minute the government decides that this should be a priority. $250K per incident. The pundits may say FU, but their owners sure as hell won't. This is not 'politicizing' the issue, as such sanctions would apply to everyone, regardless of Leftie/Righty message. Of course, it would be levied almost exclusively against the Right...as they are the only public figures employing this kind of rhetoric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I'm on the ACLU's 2nd Amendment Policy Committee. True story LOL! You've told us multiple times. Nobody is impressed. I must have impressed you enough for you to remember, girlfriend! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.