Free Speech, hate speech, and conspiracy to commit murder

I've been thinking lately. I'm general for free speech and while I don't like hate speech and will confront anyone doing it, as a believer in free speech, believe it should be protected. Besides, if not, then how will we know who the haters are.

But I've also been thinking lately, in light of the massacre, etc. When is the point you could legitimately call hate speech, a conspiracy to commit murder and/or genocide? Is there a point? I mean, let's think about it.

You're let's say saying gays should be killed, your encouraging such beliefs in others, your indicating they are subhuman, and pushing agendas to remove their rights and protections. Your invoking your god to other believers in said god with the mandate that gays must die.

Now is this really a free speech issue anymore? Or can we legitimately say, you're conspiring to engaging in the genocide of homosexuals? Is conspiring to, and encouraging the deaths of others on a mass scale, really free speech?

But at the same time. We all say heated things. So I mean, an off handed death threat, isn't really a real threat, it's just anger. A person doesn't deserve to be prosecuted for having a bad day. So there's two sides to this coin.

At what point, should what a person says, and encourages be considered more than just anger and frustration, and instead more. Where should free speech end? Shouting fire in a crowded theater? Or does people getting together and encouraging each other to kill people who are different count as well? When does hate speech turn to an actual theat that needs to be recognized and dealt with, rather than ignored and allowed under the protections of free speech.

Seems a very complex issue.

a reply to: Puppylove

we have the wrong framework here...

Radical Muslims have declared war on the west, they have done so in an ideological, political, and economic fashion, their words lead to real violence and death - on unprecedented global scales from genocides to mass cowardly attacks.

Mosques where they preach their hateful rhetoric are the head quarters, and ideological think tanks of these groups, they do not separate church from state therefor we should consider them one in the same, with that said, any speech that comes from radical Islam is an indicator of their presence and where they operate from, and we should arrest them and we should search their phones, and connections, and seize funds, and if we are unwilling to do this, then we are not treating this like a WAR and we will continue to see increasing attacks against the west.

That's the home front, now the mission goes further and involves a full scale occupation and a complete control of Saudi Arabia. That's the answer and I can't be anymore honest about it.

In a disturbing twist, a speech given by a Muslim speaker in 2013 at the Husseini Islamic Center in the Orlando suburb of Sanford, Florida, in 2013 called for death to homosexuals. Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar said killing of homosexuals is the “compassionate” thing to do: “Death is the sentence. We know there’s nothing to be embarrassed about this, death is the sentence.”

Anyone who has influence over thousand of people, who says things like this, needs to be in jail. And no, it doesn't matter which God you worship or what your magic book says. If people want the leader of the Black Panthers in jail for saying "we should kill white people" then why do they scream " Freedom of Religion!" when their Pastor or Sheikh says such things as this?

a reply to: Puppylove

A difficult question with an equally difficult answer. I will say however your terminology is wrong. In a dogs world to advocate the killing of all Dobermans, would be to advocate genocide of that breed. To advocate the killing of all homosexual dogs, is not genocide, It's advocating mass murder. Genocide deals with the breed or race of the animal, not its sexual preference. Calling this Orlando situation genocide pertaining to gays is like calling the mass killing of bankers or politicians, genocide lol. The term does not fit, gays are not a race and therefore not subject to genocide.

That being said, there are no lose and fast rules to determine a crossover from hate speech to inciting violence. We do know that alleged hate speech is prosecuted, but only with Caucasians. Every other breed of human it seems gets a free pass. If this were not the case, why are these imams allowed to incite violence using hate speech on American soil? The laws are in place but they are not being utilized on non-caucasians, go figure?

So, until you can answer why nobody but Caucasians get charged with hate speech or hate speech to incite violence, the larger question can't be answered.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Puppylove

I don't understand the intricacies of law, but I imagine at some point in the not too distant future that treason may be invoked in cases where the objective of hate speech is to undermine or subvert the state through inciting social unrest.

My best guess is a treason charge.

a reply to: Jonjonj

I think it falls under war.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Puppylove

we have the wrong framework here...

Radical Muslims have declared war on the west, they have done so in an ideological, political, and economic fashion, their words lead to real violence and death - on unprecedented global scales from genocides to mass cowardly attacks.

Mosques where they preach their hateful rhetoric are the head quarters, and ideological think tanks of these groups, they do not separate church from state therefor we should consider them one in the same, with that said, any speech that comes from radical Islam is an indicator of their presence and where they operate from, and we should arrest them and we should search their phones, and connections, and seize funds, and if we are unwilling to do this, then we are not treating this like a WAR and we will continue to see increasing attacks against the west.

That's the home front, now the mission goes further and involves a full scale occupation and a complete control of Saudi Arabia. That's the answer and I can't be anymore honest about it.

While I will agree with much of what you said, where do we draw the line, do we treat Westboro and the other Christian leaders that have called for the death of gays in the same fashion?

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Jonjonj

I think it falls under war.

And , if it is treason , what is it called during a time of war ?

a reply to: TechniXcality

Oh I already know that you know that I believe we are at war... ideologically and, more an more, physically.

But even if war is not actually declared, I think a treason charge could be used, right?

(Yes, I invoked the I know that you know that I know clause).

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

There's a reason I said "and/or," homosexuality was just used as one example which happens to fall into the mass murder category. Could also be blacks, whites, etc. Homosexuality just happens to be most currently relevant.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Puppylove

we have the wrong framework here...

Radical Muslims have declared war on the west, they have done so in an ideological, political, and economic fashion, their words lead to real violence and death - on unprecedented global scales from genocides to mass cowardly attacks.

Mosques where they preach their hateful rhetoric are the head quarters, and ideological think tanks of these groups, they do not separate church from state therefor we should consider them one in the same, with that said, any speech that comes from radical Islam is an indicator of their presence and where they operate from, and we should arrest them and we should search their phones, and connections, and seize funds, and if we are unwilling to do this, then we are not treating this like a WAR and we will continue to see increasing attacks against the west.

That's the home front, now the mission goes further and involves a full scale occupation and a complete control of Saudi Arabia. That's the answer and I can't be anymore honest about it.

While I will agree with much of what you said, where do we draw the line, do we treat Westboro and the other Christian leaders that have called for the death of gays in the same fashion?

I'm surprised you agree with me brother, and im glad we have met somewhere, though I've always liked you, my answer may be less than satisfactory here but I will give it a shot.

We are not war with Westboro church, and while in the past radical Christianity has claimed many lives on a similar global scale, we did in fact goto war, which caused the reformation of Christianity, and the relative calming associated with its more extreme adherents, we separated church from state, and these things have lead to a blossoming society across the west.

So where do we draw the line? well, we draw it at the point that the words mobilize on a grand scale people willing to die for the ideology, otherwise it is protected speech. What we do is declare war and we execute the functions of war.

originally posted by: TechniXcality

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Puppylove

we have the wrong framework here...

Radical Muslims have declared war on the west, they have done so in an ideological, political, and economic fashion, their words lead to real violence and death - on unprecedented global scales from genocides to mass cowardly attacks.

Mosques where they preach their hateful rhetoric are the head quarters, and ideological think tanks of these groups, they do not separate church from state therefor we should consider them one in the same, with that said, any speech that comes from radical Islam is an indicator of their presence and where they operate from, and we should arrest them and we should search their phones, and connections, and seize funds, and if we are unwilling to do this, then we are not treating this like a WAR and we will continue to see increasing attacks against the west.

That's the home front, now the mission goes further and involves a full scale occupation and a complete control of Saudi Arabia. That's the answer and I can't be anymore honest about it.

While I will agree with much of what you said, where do we draw the line, do we treat Westboro and the other Christian leaders that have called for the death of gays in the same fashion?

I'm surprised you agree with me brother, and im glad we have met somewhere, though I've always liked you, my answer may be less than satisfactory here but I will give it a shot.

We are not war with Westboro church, and while in the past radical Christianity has claimed many lives on a similar global scale, we did in fact goto war, which caused the reformation of Christianity, and the relative calming associated with its more extreme adherents, we separated church from state, and these things have lead to a blossoming society across the west.

So where do we draw the line? well, we draw it at the point that the words mobilize on a grand scale people willing to die for the ideology, otherwise it is protected speech. What we do is declare war and we execute the functions of war.

My friend, I think most of us would meet in the middle far more easily than the US Congress. I know there are many peaceful religious people in the US, I say that the FBI begin infiltrating all of those that preach hate, of any kind. I realize I am putting a lot of faith in the US Government, but in the near past, we have seen extremist come from all sides.

My second thing would be, remove the not for profit label from any religious organization, and then they could pay taxes like the rest of us peasants. Most of them are breaching the rules of NFP with the preaching they do from the pulpit.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

There's a reason I said "and/or," homosexuality was just used as one example which happens to fall into the mass murder category. Could also be blacks, whites, etc. Homosexuality just happens to be most currently relevant.

You can't call it genocide, that word applies to race/breed. If we are going to be able to communicate ideas we do kind of need to have a common set of linguistic rules ;-)

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: BubbaJoe

I think you have points on taxation, but I also think that's a broader issue though it could help stem some money flow or even move some churches/ mosques Ect, and the FBI infiltrating all churches that have hate speech is very broad as well, and may be a resource pit, we don't want to silence of oppress any church or mosque that is not engaged in a war and I would argue that while the hate speech is reprehensible from Christians it is not a rallying cry for genocide, war Ect. I agree, let's infiltrate these places and start kicking doors down, anything less is not taking this seriously, but everyone must understand this in the context of war, because we are walking a delicate line by going this direction, but I think an honest society bent towards peace will ensure that we do not overstep moral boundaries but perhaps I have to much faith in the government as well.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

It was a subject that encompassed a broad spectrum more than homosexuality. It includes hate against race, etc. Therefore genocide is completely appropriate in some circumstances. Once again the reason for murder and/or genocide. Meaning not always discussing genocide.

Surely if linguistics are such a big deal to you, you comprehend and/or statements, as well as broad concepts that encompass a broad spectrum and multiple categories of offense? I mean really, come on here. My language was fine, and very carefully put forth, with statements specifically meant to make the words applied subjectively when appropriate.

Had I called mass murder of homosexuals genocide you might be right, but I did no such thing what so ever. I used homosexuality hate as my prime example of these kinds of hate crimes, but not exclusively as the only kind. If we're going to discuss we need to read what's said, and all the content within, especially statements specifically made to demonstrate different categories within the same concept.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: BubbaJoe

I think you have points on taxation, but I also think that's a broader issue though it could help stem some money flow or even move some churches/ mosques Ect, and the FBI infiltrating all churches that have hate speech is very broad as well, and may be a resource pit, we don't want to silence of oppress any church or mosque that is not engaged in a war and I would argue that while the hate speech is reprehensible from Christians it is not a rallying cry for genocide, war Ect. I agree, let's infiltrate these places and start kicking doors down, anything less is not taking this seriously, but everyone must understand this in the context of war, because we are walking a delicate line by going this direction, but I think an honest society bent towards peace will ensure that we do not overstep moral boundaries but perhaps I have to much faith in the government as well.

We are walking a very fine line with the Constitution, I live next door to a state that had an abortion doctor gunned down in his own church, Westboro are also my neighbors. I would agree that hate speech from the Christians is not a cry for genocide, but then we have Dylan Roof, who felt because of his strong Christian beliefs, he needed to gun down a bunch of black folks.

All of the alphabet agencies need to make sure their databases talk to each other, if someone is on the radar, so to speak, their background checks need to be held up.

In Orlando, we have a natural born citizen, much like you and I, decided he was going to drive an hour and a half, and gun down 100 people, I guess I have never gotten a message that strong in all my years.

Much like you, I don't have all the answers, we might be able to work out a few over a beer, but nothing would have stopped an attack like this.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

It was a subject that encompassed a broad spectrum more than homosexuality. It includes hate against race, etc. Therefore genocide is completely appropriate in some circumstances. Once again the reason for murder and/or genocide. Meaning not always discussing genocide.

Surely if linguistics are such a big deal to you, you comprehend and/or statements, as well as broad concepts that encompass a broad spectrum and multiple categories of offense? I mean really, come on here. My language was fine, and very carefully put forth, with statements specifically meant to make the words applied subjectively when appropriate.

Had I called mass murder of homosexuals genocide you might be right, but I did no such thing what so ever. I used homosexuality hate as my prime example of these kinds of hate crimes, but not exclusively as the only kind. If we're going to discuss we need to read what's said, and all the content within, especially statements specifically made to demonstrate different categories within the same concept.

Your quote from the OP,

Now is this really a free speech issue anymore? Or can we legitimately say, you're conspiring to engaging in the genocide of homosexuals? Is conspiring to, and encouraging the deaths of others on a mass scale, really free speech?

Can we agree you stated "engaging in the genocide of homosexuals" in your OP.

I remember very well a plane load of people, 159 actually, blown out of the sky to kill one man. Shall we call that a genocide of flyer's? It gets silly in a sick kind of way. Soon some idiot SJW will pick up genocide and homosexuals and push to have gay turned into a race. The world works stupid when steered by the politically correct.

Back to the original problem, laws are already in place to combat out of control hate speech that has a reasonable probability of inciting violence. It just isn't used as it might offend someone other than Caucasians.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Puppylove

At what point, should what a person says, and encourages be considered more than just anger and frustration, and instead more. Where should free speech end? Shouting fire in a crowded theater? Or does people getting together and encouraging each other to kill people who are different count as well? When does hate speech turn to an actual theat that needs to be recognized and dealt with, rather than ignored and allowed under the protections of free speech.

At no point and never should free speech end. The guilty party is always those who act on the speech, and never those who speak it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Puppylove

At what point, should what a person says, and encourages be considered more than just anger and frustration, and instead more. Where should free speech end? Shouting fire in a crowded theater? Or does people getting together and encouraging each other to kill people who are different count as well? When does hate speech turn to an actual theat that needs to be recognized and dealt with, rather than ignored and allowed under the protections of free speech.

At no point and never should free speech end. The guilty party is always those who act on the speech, and never those who speak it.

So do you believe that radical Islamic preachers of hate against the West have no responsibility for acts of terrorism?

After all they are not the ones pulling the trigger or wearing the suicide vest.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Puppylove

That's the home front, now the mission goes further and involves a full scale occupation and a complete control of Saudi Arabia. That's the answer and I can't be anymore honest about it.

Modelled after the hugely successful occupation of Iraq?