Ignoring the fact that that’s the literal opposite of what happened here… Who should decide whether that’s legal, and to what extent should they be able to decide what is and isn’t legal to say?
Ignoring the fact that that’s the literal opposite of what happened here… Who should decide whether that’s legal, and to what extent should they be able to decide what is and isn’t legal to say?
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
I mean that is the discourse. The central question is where the line should be drawn.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 hour ago
I guess I ought to clarify my position. The line should be drawn well on the side of freedom of expression. Emotive expressions should virtually always be legal. As long as there isn’t reason to believe that a thing that someone says is going to lead to a crime being committed, any punishment for that speech is unwarranted. That includes things like “I demand the death of (insert minority here).”
Unless you can convince a jury of that person’s peers that that particular expression was going to lead to a particular crime being committed against a particular person (like, if I said “here’s a gun, go kill that guy”), that speech should be legally protected.
Doomsider@lemmy.world 59 minutes ago
Found the stochastic terrorist.