And that is why he deserved what he got. If you can’t silence these dangerous types of people by legal means, all that’s left is vigilante justice.
There’s a reason drug cartels resolve their issues with violence: the legal system doesn’t work for them.
I’m not the state so I’m not bound to free speech amendments.
I see hate speech and I want it silenced - simple as that.
People who abuse the idea of free speech to advocate for robbing others of their basic human rights play a stupid game and may win stupid prizes; even if those prizes aren’t dealt out by the state.
The first amendment is prohibiting the government from restricting free speech.
I, as an individual, can want to restrict speech of racist assholes as much as I feel the need to.
I am who decides what is hate speech as much as hate preachers decide spewing their bullshit is ok.
Why should I play by different rules?
I wouldn’t classify myself as a liberal, nor do I know what I said to lead you down that path. Either way, I’m here to exchange ideas. What am I misunderstanding about free speech?
I mean, cool… But it’s still true. His words and actions were a direct call to arms for countless young people who were looking for direction (and found it in violent fascist rhetoric).
Ok, so your initial claim was ‘Stochastic terrorism’. Essentially saying that he was using coded language to hide his calls to violence. Now you’re saying his words and actions were direct call to violence? Which case are you trying to make here? If he made direct calls for violence, he should have been arrested and charged with inciting violence. The laws are quite clear on this one.
No. He was a stochastic terrorist.
And that is why he deserved what he got. If you can’t silence these dangerous types of people by legal means, all that’s left is vigilante justice.
There’s a reason drug cartels resolve their issues with violence: the legal system doesn’t work for them.
I’m sorry, I think I didn’t get the memo. Why are we trying to silence people again?
I’m not the state so I’m not bound to free speech amendments.
I see hate speech and I want it silenced - simple as that.
People who abuse the idea of free speech to advocate for robbing others of their basic human rights play a stupid game and may win stupid prizes; even if those prizes aren’t dealt out by the state.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘not being bound to free speech’. It’s the law of the land and kind of an important one.
I’m curious, in your world view, who decides what is hate speech and what would you do if you disagreed with them?
The first amendment is prohibiting the government from restricting free speech.
I, as an individual, can want to restrict speech of racist assholes as much as I feel the need to.
I am who decides what is hate speech as much as hate preachers decide spewing their bullshit is ok.
Why should I play by different rules?
Interesting. Thanks for the response, I wish you well.
You don’t understand what freedom of speech is. You have zero understanding of how anything works apparently. Typical liberal.
I wouldn’t classify myself as a liberal, nor do I know what I said to lead you down that path. Either way, I’m here to exchange ideas. What am I misunderstanding about free speech?
What does that mean?
Nevermind, I read the Wikipedia article. I’m inclined to disagree.
I mean, cool… But it’s still true. His words and actions were a direct call to arms for countless young people who were looking for direction (and found it in violent fascist rhetoric).
Ok, so your initial claim was ‘Stochastic terrorism’. Essentially saying that he was using coded language to hide his calls to violence. Now you’re saying his words and actions were direct call to violence? Which case are you trying to make here? If he made direct calls for violence, he should have been arrested and charged with inciting violence. The laws are quite clear on this one.