BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Quote:
I have repeatedly said there should be arrests for actual crimes, whether that be unlawful assemnby, trespass, assault, etc. And that has happened. Its just that speech is not one of those crimes.
As far as the evil left, you might note that it all conservatives on this thread who want to restrain and punish speech.
It isn't evil to want to restrain and punish speech that promotes or incites violence. Anyone who is honest knows that "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" is speech that has been acted on many times before, leading to the violent deaths of Americans and Israelis.
I still want an answer to my previous question: do you believe that if someone says they will kill another person on a future date five years from now (so, not imminently) that it should be legal to say, and should be protected speech?
First, I said "imminent" is judged by juries on the facts of each case. Because there is no hard and fast rule, there could be circumstances under which the threat you described is criminal.
Second, to the extent the threat is not imminent I said it is legal and protected, not that it should be.
But third, generally we should not criminalize speech.
The ironic thing is that you are making the same type of argument that comes from the snowflake, woke left. They want to criminalize "hate speech" and remove it from the First Amendment. Their base argument is that the speech itself is the harm, by saying it you satisfy the Brandenburg test because the harm is immediate, not just imminent.
To most sane people , the answer is that whatever harm come from hate speech alone (meaning no violence or trespass attached) is less than the harm that comes from repression of ideas and liberty. Same thing here-without a specific, credible threat the harm of outlawing offensive language far outweighs the harm of allowing it.