Support NeoGAF

[Enosh]

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

...

that makes no sense, i have no idea what you are trying to say

you said muslims weren't invading europe, I presented evidence that they were, but that now somehow doens't count beacose they were fighthing against each others?

well fucking french germans and english were also constantly fighthing against each other during the same time frame

again I have no idea what you are trying to say with that

 

[Gaborn]

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

First, I think we can accept that doing so in the event of an ACTUAL fire is protected speech, right? Let's change it JUST a little bit to more clearly illustrate a disntinction I'd think was obvious. In the US (if you're not aware) emergency services can be reached with 911. So, let's say I call 911 and request an ambulance because "Timmy fell down the well again." So they come and are on scene to rescue Timmy... and Timmy isn't down the well. In fact, there IS no Timmy. There IS no well. I made the call just to get a response, just to cause them to act. Protected speech? I think a reasonable person would say no, there was no purpose other than to cause a panic/waste resources for my own amusement.

The same applies to shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's such an (excuse me for this) inflammatory situation that falsely shouting that and causing a panic can lead to injury, even death by trampling as people try to escape. The harm I cause is direct, immediate, and traceable directly to my action, my intent is unmistakeable.

Now look at hate speech. Say I'm a Grand Kleagle of the KKK (Bobby Byrd's old rank, a recruiter for the mongers of hate and fear). I'm railing against black people, in sonorous tones decrying their inhumanity, their animalistic qualities, I'm being horribly insulting on every level. The people listening to me were recruited by me, they probably already share similar attitudes, but let's even assume not. Let's assume they joined out of hatred for Jews, communists, or some other group. So they're listening to me rail on about the "race problem" and they're nodding and they're becoming convinced I'm right.

That doesn't make it MY fault if they then go out and kill some guy for being black, any more than some drunken idiot mouthing off about some guy who cheated him should be blamed if a fellow bar patron takes the guy's head off with a shotgun thinking he was doing me a favor.

Now, let's tweak it slightly. Say I'm railing against blacks, invoking every ridiculous, outmoded stereotype I can think of and that I were to truly BELIEVE it. Say in the course of my diatribe I was to say "and we have a pack of 'n------ right down the street at 123 Byrd Lane" Now I've just done something different. I've given someone extra information while firing them up, giving them a tool for their hatred. It's akin to a bartender getting someone stinking drunk and letting them leave the bar to drive themselves home rather than making them use a designated driver/calling for a ride.

An example of this in real world terms is everyone's favorite mule fucker Neal Horsley. Horsley lost a civil case where he had posted the name and address of an abortion doctor who was later murdered "thanks" to that information. In other words, it was found that his action, posting the name and address contributed directly to the death of the Doctor.

 

[gerg]

Now look at hate speech. Say I'm a Grand Kleagle of the KKK (Bobby Byrd's old rank, a recruiter for the mongers of hate and fear). I'm railing against black people, in sonorous tones decrying their inhumanity, their animalistic qualities, I'm being horribly insulting on every level. The people listening to me were recruited by me, they probably already share similar attitudes, but let's even assume not. Let's assume they joined out of hatred for Jews, communists, or some other group. So they're listening to me rail on about the "race problem" and they're nodding and they're becoming convinced I'm right.

That doesn't make it MY fault if they then go out and kill some guy for being black, any more than some drunken idiot mouthing off about some guy who cheated him should be blamed if a fellow bar patron takes the guy's head off with a shotgun thinking he was doing me a favor.

It does if your actions in any way influenced theirs, for the same reason that libel is not considered free speech. Your thinking is contradictory if you also believe that libel should not be considered free speech. "Why does it matter that I said that Joe Businessman hates babies? His potential business partner didn't have to believe it."

Also, bringing in inebriation complicates the matter because there is an argument that the man in question can't be blamed for his part in the causal chain because he was not in a right state of mind. There might be an aspect to our judgement that demands that our actions be conscious, for example.

Question: Do you think that people on the internet that goad others to commit suicide should be convicted of manslaughter if those others do, in fact, kill themselves?

Say in the course of my diatribe I was to say "and we have a pack of 'n------ right down the street at 123 Byrd Lane" Now I've just done something different. I've given someone extra information while firing them up, giving them a tool for their hatred. It's akin to a bartender getting someone stinking drunk and letting them leave the bar to drive themselves home rather than making them use a designated driver/calling for a ride.

As I said, it all depends on how strong the causal connection is; in some cases it will clearly be stronger than others, and it may certainly be that in the case in question it wasn't strong enough to warrant prosecution. Nevertheless, it may certainly be that there is a point where "merely" spreading racist and/or discriminatory beliefs should be punished.

 

[Gaborn]

It does if your actions in any way influenced theirs, for the same reason that libel is not considered free speech. Your thinking is contradictory if you also believe that libel should not be considered free speech. "Why does it matter that I said that Joe Businessman hates babies? His potential business partner didn't have to believe it."

I don't think libel should be CRIMINAL speech. That is, it's not the government's purpose to regulate the truth of statements about individuals or organizations and police their validity. It'd be a mighty strange world if you could be ARRESTED for lying (excluding grand jury testimony and a small handful of notable exceptions, such as obstruction of justice)

Also, bringing in inebriation complicates the matter because there is an argument that the man in question can't be blamed for his part in the causal chain because he was not in a right state of mind. There might be an aspect to our judgement that demands that our actions be conscious, for example.

Question: Do you think that people on the internet that goad others to commit suicide should be convicted of manslaughter if those others do, in fact, kill themselves?

No because suicide is ultimately a voluntary act. You can pressure someone to commit it, and they can be as fragile as glass - but ultimately that's a voluntary, personal decision.

As I said, it all depends on how strong the causal connection is; in some cases it will clearly be stronger than others, and it may certainly be that in the case in question it wasn't strong enough to warrant prosecution. Nevertheless, it may certainly be that there is a point where "merely" spreading racist and/or discriminatory beliefs should be punished.

The line is pretty bright in my opinion and relatively clear. "I hate blacks/whatever" is legally ok. "I hate the people at 123 Street X and hope one of you DOES something" is not.

 

[gerg]

I don't think libel should be CRIMINAL speech. That is, it's not the government's purpose to regulate the truth of statements about individuals or organizations and police their validity. It'd be a mighty strange world if you could be ARRESTED for lying (excluding grand jury testimony and a small handful of notable exceptions, such as obstruction of justice)

[...]

No because suicide is ultimately a voluntary act. You can pressure someone to commit it, and they can be as fragile as glass - but ultimately that's a voluntary, personal decision.

But why would they necessarily think that it is the right thing to do? Because other people have told them this.

Heck, this line of thinking undermines your comments about someone shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema. "Running for the exit and hurting someone in the process" is ultimately a voluntary action. You can scare someone into committing it, and they can be incredibly anxious and worried, but ultimately it's a voluntary, personal decision.

You can't eat your cake and have it too: either every action can ultimately be understood as the product of a person's complete autonomy, or there is a scale on which all these actions are to be understood. In not every context will someone's suicide be influenced by what others around them say, but that doesn't mean that there's no conceivable instant in which that can occur.

The line is pretty bright in my opinion and relatively clear. "I hate blacks/whatever" is legally ok. "I hate the people at 123 Street X and hope one of you DOES something" is not.

Except when the latter is implied by the former (or when someone's motivation for the latter is inspired by their belief in the former).

 

[Gaborn]

But why would they necessarily think that it is the right thing to do? Because other people have told them this.

Are you saying that if there is a sign saying "go kill yourself" and someone DOES the person who put up the sign is criminally liable? What kind of society do you live in where people are NEVER responsible for their own actions! I would think everyone knew that "but they TOLD me to do it!!!! was not a valid argument for... well... anything.

Heck, this line of thinking undermines your comments about someone shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema. "Running for the exit and hurting someone in the process" is ultimately a voluntary action. You can scare someone into committing it, and they can be incredibly anxious and worried, but ultimately it's a voluntary, personal decision.

Oh come on. Yelling fire in a crowded theater (falsley that is) serves no purpose other than create a panic. It's not protected speech because there is a direct, tangible effect on people, that is, they will react based on knowledge that they are given that there is a fire and an immediate evacuation is warranted. That's not the same as being SO impressionable that you kill yourself because some idiot tells you so.

Are you also of the opinion that video game companies are legally responsible for kids that shoot up schools?

Except when the latter is implied by the former.

No, not really. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They've claimed that many, many many people are either going to Hell or already burning in it. Should that be considered a threat? I say (and the law says) no because as disgusting and hateful as the group is they're not asking anyone to kill the people they're damning, they think God will take care of that.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

Pure dutch hypocrisy. Wilders discriminates Muslims almost every time he is talking.

 

[Prine]

...

that makes no sense, i have no idea what you are trying to say

you said muslims weren't invading europe, I presented evidence that they were, but that now somehow doens't count beacose they were fighthing against each others?

well fucking french germans and english were also constantly fighthing against each other during the same time frame

again I have no idea what you are trying to say with that

The Turks took control of Saudi Arabia and parts of Asia, conquering already muslim nations. Turks taking control of Byzantine areas and the Moors annexing parts of Spain, Italy and France was not a uniform movement by Islamic nations as the Crusades was with christians. I think thats what Gaborn is pointing at (correct me if im wrong Gaborn).

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

...

that makes no sense, i have no idea what you are trying to say

you said muslims weren't invading europe, I presented evidence that they were, but that now somehow doens't count beacose they were fighthing against each others?

well fucking french germans and english were also constantly fighthing against each other during the same time frame

again I have no idea what you are trying to say with that

Do you see everything in the world black and white? Serious question.. because you sound like such a simple soul..

 

[Gaborn]

The Turks took control of Saudi Arabia and parts of Asia, conquering already muslim nations. Turks taking control of Byzantine areas and the Moors annexing parts of Spain, Italy and France was not a uniform movement by Islamic nations as the Crusades was with christians. I think thats what Gaborn is pointing at (correct me if im wrong Gaborn).

More or less. Plus, it's worth noting that the Arabs saw the Turks as a MAJOR threat and tried several times to JOIN the crusaders in an alliance against them.

 

[gerg]

Are you saying that if there is a sign saying "go kill yourself" and someone DOES the person who put up the sign is criminally liable? What kind of society do you live in where people are NEVER responsible for their own actions! I would think everyone knew that "but they TOLD me to do it!!!! was not a valid argument for... well... anything.

As I said, the matter rests on what should be considered "reasonable".

I've never wanted to suggest that someone should never be considered as responsible for their actions. I'm just saying that more often than not there's elements of both personal autonomy and outside influence in the way we act, and that in some cases it would be reasonable to suggest that acts of discrimination are actively influenced by someone else's discriminatory comments, to the extent that the latter should also be considered immoral.

Oh come on. Yelling fire in a crowded theater (falsley that is) serves no purpose other than create a panic.

Goading someone to kill themselves serves no purpose other than for the lulz.

It's not protected speech because there is a direct, tangible effect on people, that is, they will react based on knowledge that they are given that there is a fire and an immediate evacuation is warranted.

Suggesting that someone kill themselves, especially when this advice is not sincere, might not be considered as protected speech because it has a direct, tangible effect on people; that is, they will react based on the knowledge they are given that killing themselves is the right thing to do, and that this action is warranted by the surrounding circumstances.

That's not the same as being SO impressionable that you kill yourself because some idiot tells you so.

Why are you SO impressionable that you run for the exit when some random nobody whom you've never met shouts out "Fire!"?

Why is it so unreasonable that when you are in a generally depressed and impressionable state of mind to actively consider killing yourself on the advice of strangers? Your mental state of mind is compromised; it should not be taken advantage of.

(Of course, bringing up rationality in general in regards to a mentally ill, suicidal person may demand unreasonable standards.)

Are you also of the opinion that video game companies are legally responsible for kids that shoot up schools?

No. As I said, not every action, such as the one taken by the group mentioned in this thread, should be considered as causally efficacious. (That term springs to mind.) That doesn't mean that some acts of free speech aren't, however.

No, not really. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They've claimed that many, many many people are either going to Hell or already burning in it. Should that be considered a threat? I say (and the law says) no because as disgusting and hateful as the group is they're not asking anyone to kill the people they're damning, they think God will take care of that.

Generally I would draw the line at whether or not the message includes a call to action - if it does it can be considered as "inciting racial hatred", for example, and thus I don't think that it should necessarily be considered as free speech. (And so one would not need to provide specific details, such as a person's address, for your act of speaking to be considered as wrong.) Things do get tricky when the latter may be implicit rather than explicit, though, although I have probably overstated my argument in that regard. (Nevertheless, that we might consider the "Fire!" example as immoral might suggest some element of veracity in that line of thinking.)

 

[sangreal]

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

I was replying to a statement about US law. Please read if you want to participate.

 

[Enosh]

Pure dutch hypocrisy. Wilders discriminates Muslims almost every time he is talking.

and he is on trial for it

The Turks took control of Saudi Arabia and parts of Asia, conquering already muslim nations. Turks taking control of Byzantine areas and the Moors annexing parts of Spain, Italy and France was not a uniform movement by Islamic nations as the Crusades was with christians. I think thats what Gaborn is pointing at (correct me if im wrong Gaborn).

his original point was that it wasn't a two way street beacose muslims weren't atacking or invading Europe

fact is, muslims were invading europe and those invasions, by whoever they were and whatever the other motives of the factions were, are one of the reasons the crusades got started in the first place

I never made the point that it was an unifying muslim idea that was behind that conquest

 

[Gaborn]

As I said, the matter rests on what should be considered "reasonable".

Reasonable? "My unique little snowflake killed themselves because they were MEAN to him!" is not reasonable.

I've never wanted to suggest that someone should never be considered as responsible for their actions. I'm just saying that more often than not there's elements of both personal autonomy and outside influence in the way we act, and that in some cases it would be reasonable to suggest that acts of discrimination are actively influenced by someone else's discriminatory comments, to the extent that the latter should also be considered immoral.

Yes and no. If someone is listening to a ridiculous racist and believing it uncritically they probably already have pre-existing underlying views. That's why I specified that if they're not giving the person a specific target for their bigotry I don't have a legal problem with that kind of speech. It's not like if I heard some bigoted comments about some group I'm just going to start HATING that group irrationally, I can't speak for you but that's true for me.

Goading someone to kill themselves serves no purpose other than for the lulz.

But would a reasonable person believe that they killed themselves because of those comments and not some underlying depression or some other reason?

Suggesting that someone kill themselves, especially when this advice is not sincere, might not be considered as protected speech because it has a direct, tangible effect on people; that is, they will react based on the knowledge they are given that killing themselves is the right thing to do, and that this action is warranted by the surrounding circumstances.

I don't think a reasonable person would make that conclusion.

Why are you SO impressionable that you run for the exit when some random nobody whom you've never met shouts out "Fire!"?

Because it IS in fact reasonable to act to protect yourself from a very real potential harm. From a very early age kids are trained to leave a building in the event of fire because fires can spread fast. You can't assume that any and every shout of fire is fake, you HAVE to assume the worst in that situation.

Why is it so unreasonable that when you are in a generally depressed and impressionable state of mind to actively consider killing yourself on the advice of strangers? Your mental state of mind is compromised; it should not be taken advantage of.

But is the other person responsible for your state of mind?

No. As I said, not every action, such as the one taken by the group mentioned in this thread, should be considered as causally efficacious. (That term springs to mind.) That doesn't mean that some acts of free speech aren't, however.

But a reasonable person isn't going to kill themselves.

Generally I would draw the line at whether or not the message includes a call to action - if it does it can be considered as "inciting racial hatred", for example, and thus I don't think that it should necessarily be considered as free speech. (And so one would not need to provide specific details, such as a person's address, for your act of speaking to be considered as wrong.) Things do get tricky when the latter may be implicit rather than explicit, though, although I have probably overstated my argument in that regard. (Nevertheless, that we might consider the "Fire!" example as immoral might suggest some element of veracity in that line of thinking.)

I think that IS the crux of things. I draw a VERY clear line between implicit calls for action and explicit.

For example, as I was mentioning above many times racists will talk about the "race problem" and that whites are a "minority" (which is of course false) and that they're "losing their power" and they need to "fight back" against this. This is generally taken as a metaphorical statement. I find it repugnant but I don't consider it a call for violence. I don't believe a reasonable person would interpret those statements as a call for direct violence either, therefore I wouldn't hold someone legally responsible for any idiot who committed violence "because they said so" in that context.

At the same time if they kept mentioning a specific family at a specific location? That could very well rise to the level of unprotected speech.

 

[gerg]

Reasonable? "My unique little snowflake killed themselves because they were MEAN to him!" is not reasonable.

There's a difference between targeted messages goading someone specific into action and general, insensitive advertisements.

Yes and no. If someone is listening to a ridiculous racist and believing it uncritically they probably already have pre-existing underlying views.

Or they may be impressionable young adults who are disillusioned with the society in which they live.

That's why I specified that if they're not giving the person a specific target for their bigot1ry I don't have a legal problem with that kind of speech.

I don't see why it matters that you give them a specific target (to the extent of providing personal details of that target, and so on).

It's not like if I heard some bigoted comments about some group I'm just going to start HATING that group irrationally, I can't speak for you but that's true for me.

It's not always just about an off-hand comment here and there, though. It's often about a message that is reinforced several times from several different sources on impressionable people.

But would a reasonable person believe that they killed themselves because of those comments and not some underlying depression or some other reason?

Why do we have to be either/or about it?

Without the depression the comments would have had no effect; but without the comments the depression may not have been realised.

I don't think a reasonable person would make that conclusion.

Why not?

But is the other person responsible for your state of mind?

As I said, it depends. The matter is more complicated than "Has something been said? Y/N".

But a reasonable person isn't going to kill themselves.

But that's kind of not the point. I mean, we're talking about suicidal people here. Yes, a reasonable person might not kill themselves, but then a reasonable person probably isn't going to be suicidal.

I think that IS the crux of things. I draw a VERY clear line between implicit calls for action and explicit.

So is shouting "Fire!" an explicit call to action? And if so, where does that explicitness lie? It can't lie in the exclamation itself, as there is no demand to "start running" within it. Shouting "Fire!" must, therefore, be implicit in any demands it gives to the listener.

At the same time if they kept mentioning a specific family at a specific location? That could very well rise to the level of unprotected speech.

But, if they never actually demanded any action to that family (and so they basically added "Oh, and John Doe lives in London." to the end of their speech), then surely their "command to action" is implicit? And so, by your logic, wouldn't any reasonable person not interpret those statements as a call for action?

 

[Gaborn]

There's a difference between targeted messages goading someone specific into action and general, insensitive advertisements.

Yes, but if someone is in that fragile of a state they shouldn't put themselves in the position to be exposed to a person that would say those things.

Or they may be impressionable young adults who are disillusioned with the society in which they live.

Every young adult is disillusioned with the society they live in at SOME point. That's not an excuse for racism, and whatever the reason if you're listening that doesn't give you carte blanche to turn off your mind.

I don't see why it matters that you give them a specific target (to the extent of providing personal details of that target, and so on).

Because you have every right to dislike, or yes, hate any group you like in a free society. Heck, you have every right to hate an individual, you just don't have the right to call for violence against an individual.

It's not always just about an off-hand comment here and there, though. It's often about a message that is reinforced several times from several different sources on impressionable people.

therefore your solution is to blame the last person who made a racist comment?

Why do we have to be either/or about it?

Without the depression the comments would have had no effect; but without the comments the depression may not have been realised.

So you're arguing that the depression was caused by a comment which led to their suicide... but that if there was no depression it would have had no effect? Seems pretty weak to me.

Why not?

Because suicide, except in the case of extreme psychosis, is not a simple concept with a simple cause. It's never ONE thing that causes it, it's an entire self image profile. Now, if you're arguing someone is stalking the person and creating an entire campaign that's one thing, that would violate anti-harassment laws, anti stalking laws, and a whole host of others, but ultimately they're not putting the noose around your neck.

As I said, it depends. The matter is more complicated than "Has something been said? Y/N".

Correct. In other words, there is no proximate cause, you can't argue "but for so and so's actions" you wouldn't have been harmed (by killing yourself) because if you were that bad off ANYTHING would set you off.

But that's kind of not the point. I mean, we're talking about suicidal people here. Yes, a reasonable person might not kill themselves, but then a reasonable person probably isn't going to be suicidal.

Right. So you're holding people to a higher standard because someone ELSE is in a particularly vulnerable state? if they're that bad off then the FAMILY has some responsibility for not committing them and thus reducing their ability to be exposed to negative influences.

So is shouting "Fire!" an explicit call to action? And if so, where does that explicitness lie? It can't lie in the exclamation itself, as there is no demand to "start running" within it. Shouting "Fire!" must, therefore, be implicit in any demands it gives to the listener.

Shouting fire IS an explicit call to action, it's a specific targetted attempt to create a false sense of panic.

But, if they never actually demanded any action to that family (and so they basically added "Oh, and John Doe lives in London." to the end of their speech), then surely their "command to action" is implicit? And so, by your logic, wouldn't any reasonable person not interpret those statements as a call for action?

I think that's a slightly gray area to be honest. I would tend to suspect it could be construed as an explicit call for something to be done, or perhaps a suggestion for a target, but that's a lot tougher to prove.

 

[KHarvey16]

Two magic words: "imminent lawlessness."

 

[gerg]

Yes, but if someone is in that fragile of a state they shouldn't put themselves in the position to be exposed to a person that would say those things.

Perhaps that's a valid point to make. But highlighting the efficaciousness of one person's actions doesn't deny that of others.

Every young adult is disillusioned with the society they live in at SOME point. That's not an excuse for racism, and whatever the reason if you're listening that doesn't give you carte blanche to turn off your mind.

I'm not giving an excuse for racism. I'm not saying that it's right for the young people in question to believe the propositions that they do (although, on reflection, this may conflict with the belief that one only derives an "ought" from a "can"), but that the reason why they're wrong is not necessarily limited solely to themselves.

Yes, their internal reasoning was incorrect, but given that they might always have been less rational than others outside influences should not purposefully and negatively influence them.

Because you have every right to dislike, or yes, hate any group you like in a free society. Heck, you have every right to hate an individual, you just don't have the right to call for violence against an individual.

But providing personal details isn't an explicit call to violence; it's a breach of personal privacy, perhaps, but not a call to violence.

therefore your solution is to blame the last person who made a racist comment?

I never said as much, no.

So you're arguing that the depression was caused by a comment which led to their suicide... but that if there was no depression it would have had no effect? Seems pretty weak to me.

You've misunderstood me.

Think of the relationship between a candle, a flame, and light. Without a candle (and the wick within it) there would be no flame. Without a flame, the candle would be a mere lump of wax that would be quite useless.

What, then, do we say when asking what "causes" light? To say either the flame or the candle is clearly insufficient; what causes the light is a circumstance created when two or more factors work together in unison.

Because suicide, except in the case of extreme psychosis, is not a simple concept with a simple cause. It's never ONE thing that causes it, it's an entire self image profile. Now, if you're arguing someone is stalking the person and creating an entire campaign that's one thing, that would violate anti-harassment laws, anti stalking laws, and a whole host of others, but ultimately they're not putting the noose around your neck.

As I've said, you can't eat your cake and have it to.

Either you deny completely the efficaciousness of actions other than the subject's own internal reasoning, or you have to justify why the situation you describe above can't be considered as influential whereas the call to kill Mr. So-and-so who lives on Evergreen Terrace is. It's inconsistent.

Correct. In other words, there is no proximate cause, you can't argue "but for so and so's actions" you wouldn't have been harmed (by killing yourself) because if you were that bad off ANYTHING would set you off.

I don't think that it's important that anything could "set you off" as much as it that something did.

Right. So you're holding people to a higher standard because someone ELSE is in a particularly vulnerable state? if they're that bad off then the FAMILY has some responsibility for not committing them and thus reducing their ability to be exposed to negative influences.

I never denied that the family might have some kind of responsibility; I merely deny the claim that the other third-party involved doesn't either.

But, yes, I don't see why it is so hard to believe that the duty imposed on us varies in regards to our context.

Shouting fire IS an explicit call to action, it's a specific targetted attempt to create a false sense of panic.

If we consider that having a specific motive for speaking as an indication of an "explicit" call for action then every word said within a public context is "explicit" in what it states.

Responding to the shout of "Fire!" by running for an exit may be reasonable, but not because the command "Fire!" explicitly contains the imperative to do so in the way that "Fire! Run away!" does.

I think that's a slightly gray area to be honest. I would tend to suspect it could be construed as an explicit call for something to be done, or perhaps a suggestion for a target, but that's a lot tougher to prove.

Perhaps we might question the meaningful nature of the "explicit/implicit" distinction.

I'm not sure; this is the most I've thought about the matter for a while.

 

[Gaborn]

Perhaps that's a valid point to make. But highlighting the efficaciousness of one person's actions doesn't deny that of others.



I'm not giving an excuse for racism. I'm not saying that it's right for the young people in question to believe the propositions that they do (although, on reflection, this may conflict with the belief that one only derives an "ought" from a "can"), but that the reason why they're wrong is not necessarily limited solely to themselves.

Yes, their internal reasoning was incorrect, but given that they might always have been less rational than others outside influences should not purposefully and negatively influence them.



But providing personal details isn't an explicit call to violence; it's a breach of personal privacy, perhaps, but not a call to violence.



I never said as much, no.



You've misunderstood me.

Think of the relationship between a candle, a flame, and light. Without a candle (and the wick within it) there would be no flame. Without a flame, the candle would be a mere lump of wax that would be quite useless.

What, then, do we say when asking what "causes" light? To say either the flame or the candle is clearly insufficient; what causes the light is a circumstance created when two or more factors work together in unison.



As I've said, you can't eat your cake and have it to.

Either you deny completely the efficaciousness of actions other than the subject's own internal reasoning, or you have to justify why the situation you describe above can't be considered as influential whereas the call to kill Mr. So-and-so who lives on Evergreen Terrace is. It's inconsistent.



I don't think that it's important that anything could "set you off" as much as it that something did.



I never denied that the family might have some kind of responsibility; I merely deny the claim that the other third-party involved doesn't either.

But, yes, I don't see why it is so hard to believe that the duty imposed on us varies in regards to our context.



If we consider that having a specific motive for speaking as an indication of an "explicit" call for action then every word said within a public context is "explicit" in what it states.

Responding to the shout of "Fire!" by running for an exit may be reasonable, but not because the command "Fire!" explicitly contains the imperative to do so in the way that "Fire! Run away!" does.



Perhaps we might question the meaningful nature of the "explicit/implicit" distinction.

I'm not sure; this is the most I've thought about the matter for a while.

Kharvey really makes a great point, the key here, at least from the US perspective IS immininent lawless action as was defined in Brandenburg v Ohio

 

[gerg]

Kharvey really makes a great point, the key here, at least from the US perspective IS immininent lawless action as was defined in Brandenburg v Ohio

I'm not discussing what the law is; I'm discussing what the law should be.

Ultimately, if I were to try and make some kind of concluding statement, it's that you overemphasise the existence of "explicit" calls to action; a lot (if not almost all) of the meaning and nature of language lies in its implicit connotations, and so you can't remove words from context. (And, this is something that I may have been doing in this discussion, too.) The same words may fall both inside and outside the protection of free speech within different contexts.

 

[Raistlin]

While I'm not stating I agree this should be a crime, I'm a little shocked (and sickened) that people are implying there's a moral equivalency between the Holocaust and the contents of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons.