Support NeoGAF

[KHarvey16]

If a target is specifically target based on certain characteristics that aren't general (i.e. age/sex) sounds like a good way to qualify...

If we're judging intent why do you say "or at least result" in your last post? That implies intent doesn't matter. What you are actually looking to punish is terrorism.

 

[KHarvey16]

Perhaps I chose a poor example. Nevertheless, mens rea is a fundamental ingredient of a criminal offense. It seems patently absurd to me that a reasonable and just law system would reject intention as an important factor in determining the severity of a crime. On one hand, accidents happen and people do stupid things. On the other hand, discrimination exists, and sometimes it manifests as a violent crime that specifically targets a particular ethnic group. There must be a distinction between ignorance and criminal intent, or we risk placing every offender on the same level as a career criminal, murderous bigot or psychopath.

Are you treating the consideration of intent and the prosecution of hate crime as a package deal? I haven't argued that intent should not be considered, I've only pointed out the flaw in the analogy and even that was only done under the pretense that you were arguing in favor of prosecuting hate crimes.

 

[Gaborn]

Are you treating the consideration of intent and the prosecution of hate crime as a package deal? I haven't argued that intent should not be considered, I've only pointed out the flaw in the analogy and even that was only done under the pretense that you were arguing in favor of prosecuting hate crimes.

He's not even talking about intent though, he's talking about mens rea, that is, state of mind. That is NOT the same as intent. All it means is that you have a "guilty mind," that is, that your purpose for doing whatever you're doing, is to harm someone. Intent is similar to expressing the motive for a crime. A criminal's motive is very important I'd say for catching someone. It might even come up as a part of an insanity defense "I killed them because the voices told me they are evil" for example. But it has NOTHING to do with the material facts of a case and should play no role in a person's sentencing. A man killed because he's black is just as dead as a man killed because he's the sonuvabitch sleeping with your wife.

 

[itsgreen]

Serial killers typically kill within their own ethnic group, or if by chance not, then they tend to kill within ONE ethnic group. Should then, their crimes be more serious because they tend to target one specific type of person rather than for the fact they've killed multiple people?

if their intent is to disrupt a certain ethnic group... that certainly should be a factor...

if that intent can be proven, it should be punished more severe.

But that isn't really a big factor here. It hardly happens.

I always frown when I hear that a minor is being trialed as an adult (I mean that is inherently wrong. No matter how heinous the crime. Either have a system for children or don't.) And when a car bomber uses weapons of mass destruction... somewhere in the last 5 years, WMD has gone from Chemical/Bio or Nuclear weapons to weapons that kill more than 1 person per instance used. Life in prison for the bastard with a car bomb, but name it as it is, and it isn't a WMD. But those are completely other things and totally ot...

 

[itsgreen]

If we're judging intent why do you say "or at least result" in your last post? That implies intent doesn't matter. What you are actually looking to punish is terrorism.

Oh, I said that because I could think of crimes that didn't intent to strike fear but do.

If someone wants to kill all DS users, terminate them, all of them. The intent is not to strike fear, but a result is that all DS users will be in fear. That was at least my line of thought...

So intent should be factor, but not an exclusive factor to prove a hate crime...

 

[Monocle]

Are you treating the consideration of intent and the prosecution of hate crime as a package deal? I haven't argued that intent should not be considered, I've only pointed out the flaw in the analogy and even that was only done under the pretense that you were arguing in favor of prosecuting hate crimes.

No, hate crimes are not the issue I was addressing. I found Xeke's comment ridiculous because it derided intent as a valid legal consideration. All I needed to do to show that his claim was flawed was to point out that intent is indeed a factor in criminal prosecution.

 

[Gaborn]

if their intent is to disrupt a certain ethnic group... that certainly should be a factor...

if that intent can be proven, it should be punished more severe.

But that isn't really a big factor here. It hardly happens.

But that's the thing. What if it ISN'T their "intent" to disrupt an ethnic group but it DOES do so. Or, what if it IS their intent to do it but they had the "misfortune" of being caught before it DID... it just seems so MESSY to be endorsing thought crimes.

I always frown when I hear that a minor is being trialed as an adult (I mean that is inherently wrong. No matter how heinous the crime. Either have a system for children or don't.)

Here I think you're partially right. I will say that there is ABSOLUTELY a difference between, say, a 15 year old and a 12 year old and I have very little problem with an older minor being charged as an adult for a serious offense like multiple murders. The issue at hand in that kind of situation is always competency and I do think it is possible to establish competency for some older minors in extreme cases. I do think it is overused though. The one case that STILL bothers me on multiple levels is Derek and Alex King. They were two kids, 12 and 13 respectively who smashed their father's head in with a baseball bat. Alex was at the time in a sexual relationship with an adult (And I'm only using the term because that's what he used I believe) neighbor (and if I remember correctly convicted pedophile) who allowed both boys to smoke weed and drink. The state tried the boys as adults, and because they put forward this weird alternate theory the neighbor killed the dad to "protect" the boys (or something like that) they also were simultaneously trying the neighbor for the murder, which is ridiculous. Eventually the boys got 3rd degree murder and imprisoned for like 8 years. Such a tragic and fucked up case all around

And when a car bomber uses weapons of mass destruction... somewhere in the last 5 years, WMD has gone from Chemical/Bio or Nuclear weapons to weapons that kill more than 1 person per instance used. Life in prison for the bastard with a car bomb, but name it as it is, and it isn't a WMD. But those are completely other things and totally ot...

Separate issue entirely.

 

[neorej]

The court in the western city of Arnhem

ABC must have a different definition of "west" than us Dutchies...

OT: good to see them get convicted. AEL is made up from assholes and idiots, not much different than Geert Wilders, only more fanatic. Their leader expressed that he felt no sorrow after the murder on Van Gogh.
This cartoon illustrates perfectly how muslims misinterpret the difference freedom of speech and willingly insulting and attacking an entire group. The Danish cartoons were aimed at illustrating how terrorists are hiding behind the mask of islam, this cartoon was aimed at hurting and insulting the entire jewish community.

 

[sangreal]

This cartoon illustrates perfectly how muslims misinterpret the difference freedom of speech and willingly insulting and attacking an entire group.

What difference? Here in the US there certainly is none. What is the point of free speech if unpopular speech is banned?

The Danish cartoons were aimed at illustrating how terrorists are hiding behind the mask of islam, this cartoon was aimed at hurting and insulting the entire jewish community.

 

[Jex]

Please don't conflate Europe with the West on this. The double standard does not exist in all western countries. At least, not in law.

Point taken.

Umm...actually "the double standard" exists in a huge number of European countries, and right in their law too. It's illegal in 16 European countries.

 

[neorej]

What difference? Here in the US there certainly is none. What is the point of free speech if unpopular speech is banned?

Discrimination. That's the line. And they crossed it. I'm sure the US has similar laws that protect people from discrimination.

 

[Cyan]

Umm...actually "the double standard" exists in a huge number of European countries, and right in their law too. It's illegal in 16 European countries.

Invert your interpretation of my post.

I'm sure the US has similar laws that protect people from discrimination.

From discrimination, yes; from offensive speech, no.

 

[neorej]

Invert your interpretation of my post.


From discrimination, yes; from offensive speech, no.

Here's the difference: offensive speech is allowed, as long as it's based on something real. It's perfectly fine to deny the holocaust, as long as you have some concrete evidence to support your point.
Just blatantly going out and insulting and hurting people is discrimination.

 

[Cyan]

Discrimination requires action.

 

[neorej]

Discrimination requires action.

Drawing a cartoon is action.

Furthermore, the AEL are a bunch of hypocrites. After the Danish cartoons were published, they went out of their way to claim that such drawings were dispicable, and that hurting people was not how this society should work. And then they go and draw and publish this.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

He's not even talking about intent though, he's talking about mens rea, that is, state of mind. That is NOT the same as intent. All it means is that you have a "guilty mind," that is, that your purpose for doing whatever you're doing, is to harm someone

How is not the same as intent? If the purpose of my crime is to harm someone, then my intent is to harm someone.

Intent is similar to expressing the motive for a crime. A criminal's motive is very important I'd say for catching someone. It might even come up as a part of an insanity defense "I killed them because the voices told me they are evil" for example. But it has NOTHING to do with the material facts of a case and should play no role in a person's sentencing. A man killed because he's black is just as dead as a man killed because he's the sonuvabitch sleeping with your wife.

So there shouldn't be a difference between murder and manslaughter?

But that's the thing. What if it ISN'T their "intent" to disrupt an ethnic group but it DOES do so.

Then, imo, it's not a hate crime.

Or, what if it IS their intent to do it but they had the "misfortune" of being caught before it DID...

Well if that intention can be proved then it would be, imo, a hate crime.

it just seems so MESSY to be endorsing thought crimes.

A thought crime exist solely in thought. By definition a murder can't be one.

 

[pakkit]

Stupidity all around.

 

[sangreal]

A thought crime exist solely in thought. By definition a murder can't be one.

but with hate crime laws you aren't punishing the act of murder. You already have murder laws for that.

On the other hand, I don't see how "attempted murder" laws are any different since attempted murder is just assault with the desire to kill someone. Also, this seems quite off-topic

 

[thetrin]

Two situations aren't really similar. Religious cartoons are not the same as cartoons saying the Holocaust didn't exist or was completely overblown.

I'm sure to some people, it just depends on the punchline.

 

[sangreal]

Discrimination. That's the line. And they crossed it. I'm sure the US has similar laws that protect people from discrimination.

Hate speech (which seems to be your definition of discrimination?) is very much protected in the US.

Drawing a cartoon is action.

No more than talking is an action.

 

[SmokyDave]

They knew this one type of cartoon was illegal and did it purely to look like poor, innocent victims.

If they truly wanted to try and expose a double standard they'd have drawn cartoons about a religious figure. When no lives were lost or embassies burnt they'd have looked like the uptight fundamental idiots that they are.

Disingenuous bastards.

Added to the fact I don't think many people in Europe even support the holocaust denial laws (I certainly don't) and the whole thing is just yet more manufactured controversy by religious idiots with nothing better to do.

 

[sangreal]

They knew this one type of cartoon was illegal and did it purely to look like poor, innocent victims.

It's an act of civil disobedience to prove a point. I don't see any attempt to appear innocent.

If they truly wanted to try and expose a double standard they'd have drawn cartoons about a religious figure. When no lives were lost or embassies burnt they'd have looked like the uptight fundamental idiots that they are.

That would be pretty stupid since I don't think any other religious group cares about simple drawings of their chosen prophet. That said, this was a pretty big deal in '99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensation_exhibition#New_York

Regardless, the double standard they were exposing was that there are laws protecting other religious groups from offensive cartoons, but not Muslims. You're asking them to expose an entirely separate double standard.

the whole thing is just yet more manufactured controversy by religious idiots with nothing better to do.

Well, yes...

 

[neorej]

It's an act of civil disobedience to prove a point. I don't see any attempt to appear innocent.



That would be pretty stupid since I don't think any other religious group cares about simple drawings of their chosen prophet. That said, this was a pretty big deal in '99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensation_exhibition#New_York

Regardless, the double standard they were exposing was that there are laws protecting other religious groups from offensive cartoons, but not Muslims. You're asking them to expose an entirely separate double standard.


Well, yes...

There is no law protecting the Jews. There is a law prohibiting denial of the Holocaust. Those are two completely different things. There's a shitton of jokes being made in The Netherlands about jews by all kinds of people (including muslims and jews), noone is getting arrested for that.
If they wanted to make a point about THAT, there are better ways to do it. Organize a summit, where historical evidence can be examined by both sides of the discussion and discuss about whether the holocaust actually happened like mature, fully grown and developed adults. I would fully support a conference like that, and it's not forbidden by law either.
Instead, AEL decided to do the dumb thing and draw a cartoon that's both a direct attack on the jewish community and illegal by Dutch law. Even if their point was to start a discussion about Holocaust-denial and it's legal state in The Netherlands and Europe (which I sincerely doubt, since the AEL are a bunch of morons whose only point is full enactment of the heaviest form of Sharia throughout Europe), they chose the wrong route and ended up looking like idiots, while no discussion on a sensible level (national / European government) gets started.

 

[Chuckie]

Regardless, the double standard they were exposing was that there are laws protecting other religious groups from offensive cartoons, but not Muslims. You're asking them to expose an entirely separate double standard.

It has nothing to do with the religion and all about 'grieving'. Like mentioned before in this thread Geert Wilders is also being sued for insulting muslims and hate-speech. Another cartoonist who drew some horrible cartoons about muslims was arrested after an imam filed a complaint. (The same imam that said in an interview he was happy that Theo van Gogh got murdered and hope Wilders would die of a disease... the irony)

So yes we can discuss the limitations on Freedom of Speech in the Netherlands, but don't make it about double standards between religions.

 

[Cyan]

Drawing a cartoon is action.

Come on now.

If they wanted to make a point about THAT, there are better ways to do it. Organize a summit, where historical evidence can be examined by both sides of the discussion and discuss about whether the holocaust actually happened like mature, fully grown and developed adults. I would fully support a conference like that, and it's not forbidden by law either.

*facepalm*

This isn't about whether the Holocaust happened or not. The cartoon wasn't even really about that.

 

[Slavik81]

Can I draw comics denying what happened in Rwanda, or will I get fined?
What if I deny it indirectly by denying WWII and all associated events, or the notion that the universe is more than 50 years old?

Oh, snap. I can't believe in Last Thursdayism?

 

[SmokyDave]

This isn't about whether the Holocaust happened or not. The cartoon wasn't even really about that.

The thing is, 'exposing double standards' doesn't really work when you draw the only thing that is specifically forbidden by law. This is about as useful as me boning a 10 year old and then pointing at someone having legal sex and going "Bu-bu-bu double standards!!!".

As for the legality of holocaust denial, personally I think the laws are utterly retarded and need removing ASAP. People should be free to deny any and everything they choose whether it's a subject up for debate and scrutiny or not. I don't think the aim here is to relax holocaust denial laws though.

It's also worth pointing out that no Jews have been killing cartoonists or burning down embassies so the muslims still look fucking nuts regardless.

 

[Mael]

Why not? It is a ridiculous infringement of rights. Can I make a joke about or deny other genocides or attempted genocides? Why? Who decides what I can and cannot express an opinion about?

The law is completely stupid.

Nope you'll be fined for that too.

Hate speech (which seems to be your definition of discrimination?) is very much protected in the US.

Not here.
If you can't understand that different country don't live by the same laws of the US....

 

[Dude Abides]

The distinction is not one of intent.

But intent does matter. If you take somebody's jewelry with the intent to keep it permanently, that's larceny. If you just intend to borrow it, it's not, even though the act was the same. Or, if you break into someone's house with the intent to kill them, that's burglary, but if you break in with the intent to use their phone, it isn't.

 

[Steppenwolf]

I'm of the opinion that freedom of speech should include unpleasent and stupid things like holocaust denial, wearing of nazi symbols etc.
I highly doubt that fighting for freedom of speech was the intention of this muslim group tho.

 

[Cyan]

The thing is, 'exposing double standards' doesn't really work when you draw the only thing that is specifically forbidden by law. This is about as useful as me boning a 10 year old and then pointing at someone having legal sex and going "Bu-bu-bu double standards!!!".

The legal double standard was the point, not the cultural one. And I'm not sure that metaphor really makes sense.

If you can't understand that different country don't live by the same laws of the US....

Perhaps you have not been following the conversation.

 

[Enosh]

harriet the spy - Right. The Crusades, a religious Holy War perpetuated by Europeans don't count. I forgot.

wait, are you trying to call the crusades genocide? beacose you do realise that one was a two way street right?

on topic: I don't think hollocous denial should be illiegal and I am sad to see cases like this in a suposedly free society, if they want to make idiots of themself let them

 

[SmokyDave]

The legal double standard was the point, not the cultural one. And I'm not sure that metaphor really makes sense.

Aah, I misunderstood their motives, I thought it was cultural. Well, I hope they succeed and we can all draw mohammed and deny the holocaust. I suspect they'd rather we were criminalised for drawing mo though. I'm still not sure that purposefully offending a group is the best way to deal with your group being offended and I still think they come off looking worse as a result of the lack of radical repercussions from offended Jews.

I'm not sure that metaphor made sense either but it's Friday and I finish work in 13 minutes. My brain is already throwing it's weekend party

 

[Xeke]

 

[Gaborn]

wait, are you trying to call the crusades genocide? beacose you do realise that one was a two way street right?

I'm not sure it's fair to say that one was a two way street. I mean, except for the moors Muslims weren't really invading Europe and didn't really have the goal of "retaking" the Holy Land.

I do find this thread hilarious though, so many people are in favor of banning things simply because they're offensive to majoritarian sensibilities. I really think they don't understand that their apparent definition of free speech (speech that is not offensive to majoritarian sensibilities) doesn't really need much protection in the first place.

 

[Cyan]

I suspect they'd rather we were criminalised for drawing mo though.

This is probably true.

 

[BaronLundi]

The legal double standard was the point, not the cultural one. And I'm not sure that metaphor really makes sense.


Perhaps you have not been following the conversation.

There is no legal double standard.

At least with regard to EC law and French law (which is the one I know the best).

The same law prohibits racist and xenophobic speech, discriminatory acts because of race, religion, or nationality and the denying of all crimes against humanity as defined by the Nuremberg military tribunal.

There is of course ground for discussing and challenging the merits of such a law, how it might (and probably does) impede freedom of speech and whether freedom of speech should be an absolute superior rule. Right now, from a legal point of view, it's not in many European countries.

For all intents and purposes the law might be seen as stupid, certainly not the decision of a court of law which enforces it.

 

[Rubezh]

There is no double standard. They were fined because Holocaust denial is considered hate speech in the Netherlands. The Mohammed cartoons originated in Denmark where they have different laws on freedom of speech. Holocaust denial is not punishable in Denmark so they wouldn't have been charged a single penny had it happened there.

They only perceive a double standard as not every country in Europe has the same laws governing what is and what isn't hate speech.

 

[Enosh]

I'm not sure it's fair to say that one was a two way street. I mean, except for the moors Muslims weren't really invading Europe and didn't really have the goal of "retaking" the Holy Land.

bullshit

why the hell do you think the Emperor of Byzantine asked pope Urban for help in the first place?
shit and giggles?
aftre the battle of Manzikert, they lost more than half of their teritory, primary in antolia
there is also the whole deal with the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah who wasn't realy a BFF with christians

and how do you think the got the holy land in the first place? Just walked in and were handed the keys?

christ muslims were invading europe the whole time, from north africa they were invading spain and italy (emirate of sicily) and from the middle east the Byzantine empire

 

[BaronLundi]

In France making a cartoon denying the genocides in Rwanda or Armenia would yield the same result.

The situation is not comparable to the Danish cartoons : if someone was fined for drawing a cartoon depicting a rabbi with a bomb in his yarmulke then it would be.

 

[Gaborn]

bullshit

why the hell do you think the Emperor of Byzantine asked pope Urban for help in the first place?
shit and giggles?

aftre the battle of Manzikert, they lost more than half of their teritory, primary in antolia
there is also the whole deal with the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah who wasn't realy a BFF with christians

and how do you think the got the holy land in the first place? Just walked in and were handed the keys?

That was a war against the TURKS. However, the TURKS were also fighting ARABS. The Turks and the Arabs are not the same group, but the Crusades was basically about fighting anyone in the middle east that looked different. Thousands of Christian Arabs were also killed.

It's a little bit like if Europe had responded to requests for help to repell Genghis Khan and had gone on to murder a bunch of Russians.

 

[Ashes]

There is no double standard. They were fined because Holocaust denial is considered hate speech in the Netherlands. The Mohammed cartoons originated in Denmark where they have different laws on freedom of speech. Holocaust denial is not punishable in Denmark so they wouldn't have been charged a single penny had it happened there.

They only perceive a double standard as not every country in Europe has the same laws governing what is and what isn't hate speech.

I'm against the execution of such ways to show the infringement of liberty in question. But even I can see a double standard.

The group in question made it quite clear what their intentions are to the court. This wasn't hate speech. According to the op: "The Dutch group says it had no intention of disputing the Holocaust, but wanted instead to highlight what it described as double standards in free speech."

So the judge knows or at the very least should understand that there is no actual holocaust denial going on here.

 

[Cyan]

There is no double standard. They were fined because Holocaust denial is considered hate speech in the Netherlands. The Mohammed cartoons originated in Denmark where they have different laws on freedom of speech. Holocaust denial is not punishable in Denmark so they wouldn't have been charged a single penny had it happened there.

Would the Mo cartoons have resulted in fines in the Netherlands?

 

[Steppenwolf]

Apparently the Netherlands have a law against hate speech so i don't exactly know where they see a double standart.

 

[grumble]

Free speech has boundaries. We have to figure those out as a society. The Mohammed thing ethically was used to prove a point that not everyone in the world needs to adhere to the tenets of one religion. It was not antisocial behaviour, used to damage the functioning of society. The second one is to prevent the influence of lies and propaganda from damaging society. That's the point of laws, really; to set down in paper a system of rules for ensuring that society functions. There may be a legal squabble, although these were two different countries, but ethically it seems clear to me.

If I convince a group of people to undeservingly hate a particular group, and then some of those people discriminate, kill or otherwise harm the group, am I doing something wrong?

 

[gerg]

This is a classic misunderstanding of what "Freedom of Speech" means. It doesn't mean the literal right to say anything and everything at any time. It means the government cannot punish you purely because they don't like what you say (that is, "I hate blacks/gays/jews/people with purple skin). But they CAN restrict your speech based on safety/when there is no poltical or social commentary (Fire in a crowded theater) It also has never been construed to cover libel as another example, you cannot deliberately smear someone's reputation with false and misleading allegations. Another area, you can say "I hate blacks" but you can't say "I hate the (black family's name) at (black family's address) and something should be done about them" that is, you cannot threaten a specific individual or family even though you can hate them and spew hateful words all you want in a free society. None of those "Restrictions" should come as a shock to any thinking person and none of it has ANYTHING to do with justifying banning Holocaust denialism no matter how disgusting it is.

Not that I necessarily think that the decision in question was the right one, but I see no point in especially distinguishing "political or social" speech from other forms of speech. The reason why we would demand that a person who shouts "Fire!" in a crowded cinema should be punished is because of its undesired consequences (and nothing to do with the fact that it is without political or social commentary), the exact same reason that certain countries ban speech that "incites racial hatred"; the point in both of these cases is to confirm the place of someone else's speech in a "causal chain" of events.

So the point is, it all depends on what a "reasonable" response to someone else's speech may be. If we consider that the exclamation "Fire!" might be punishable (on the basis of harm to others or loss of life when other people respond to it) without the specific instruction "Run for your lives!", then there must be a point where the claim "The events in the Holocaust are grossly exaggerated!" becomes punishable (on the basis that it incites anti-Semitism) even without the specific instruction to discriminate against Jewish people. Perhaps that line wasn't crossed in this case, sure, but I think it is fair to say that it exists.

 

[itsgreen]

Would the Mo cartoons have resulted in fines in the Netherlands?

No.

It isn't illegal to show him in the Netherlands. If he was doing offensive things, it would have been something the courts look at...

 

[Gaborn]

Free speech has boundaries. We have to figure those out as a society. The Mohammed thing ethically was used to prove a point that not everyone in the world needs to adhere to the tenets of one religion. It was not antisocial behaviour, used to damage the functioning of society.

Doesn't that depend, in part, on your culture and experiences? It's not exactly a secret how Muslims view depictions of Muhammad. It strikes me that the cartoons depicting Muhammad could be described as simply expressing cultural animus towards a belief system you don't like, much like burning a country's flag or Piss Christ or burning books. (all of which I find fairly disgusting, all of which I'd say should be protected speech). What is the substantial difference between that and laws against Holocaust denialism? It seems to me the only practical difference is that more people (Europeans) will be offended by Holocaust denialism than people offended by depicting Muhammad (Muslims).

The second one is to prevent the influence of lies and propaganda from damaging society. That's the point of laws, really; to set down in paper a system of rules for ensuring that society functions. There may be a legal squabble, although these were two different countries, but ethically it seems clear to me.

Libel, slander, etc are all directly damaging to a person or organization's reputation. I don't think any reasonable person would consider it free speech. In fact, in the US there is a famous legal precedent (Hustler Magazine v Falwell) where a reasonable person would have to BELIEVE that a false statement about someone is true for it to even be considered unprotected speech. Thus, when Hustler published a short story supposedly written by Falwell about how he lost his virginity in an outhouse with his mother no reasonable person would believe it so it's not slander.

If I convince a group of people to undeservingly hate a particular group, and then some of those people discriminate, kill or otherwise harm the group, am I doing something wrong?

I say no, unless you're specifically targetting an individual or family. You're not responsible for another person's actions.

 

[gerg]

Libel, slander, etc are all directly damaging to a person or organization's reputation. I don't think any reasonable person would consider it free speech.

Exactly, for the same reasons that libel and slander are not considered "free speech".

I say no, unless you're specifically targetting an individual or family. You're not responsible for another person's actions.

Then why did you post seemingly in support of punishing someone who shouts "Fire!" in a crowded cinema?

 

[Apath]

:lol Mission accomplished?

I'd say so.