lol, real concerned about you thinking I'm deplorable

wanting to inflict capital punishment on people you disagree with, regardless of how much you disagree with them, is the real evil brah.

I hear you guys say Trump is an orange dorito racist sexist islamaphobic hitler all day. I don't wish any violence on you.

Thats the difference between me and you. You are clearly possessed by ideological zealotry.

Conservatives are in all sorts of denial about racism, sexism,Islamophobia and such. Why not denial about violence?

No. Not okay. You said this.

You sought to characterise Hodgkinson as a 'Bernie supporter', as if he were typical, when he gave all of $18 to Senator Sanders' campaign, when Senator Sanders has described his actions correctly as 'despicable', and when Hodgkinson had a multiple arrest record for violence against women and even female children. You were derping it, and you know you were.

I'm going to be extremely charitable and assume that your family has never been affected been affected by suicide. But your efforts to exculpate a white blue-eyed blond Murrcanoid psychopath like Michelle Carter -- and she is a psychopath, you know -- on grounds of 'free speech' (by which Murrcanoids always and only mean 'I'm so annoyed that I can't say ****** any more and it's just eating me up') are frankly evil. Deliberate, calculated incitement to suicide, simply so that the narcissistic psychopath responsible can pose on social media as a 'grieving girlfriend', is about as low as a human being can get.

So now you're sharing that you're against capital punishment? I mean, OK, but what does this have to do anything?

Do you believe in an objective reality?

What I actually said is that Hodgkinson is not typical of the people, including Bernie supporters and other Democrats, on this forum. I don't believe in saying false things for rhetorical effect, so I'm not going to lie about whether Hodgkinson supported Sanders to support this claim. If I'm wrong about him supporting Sanders I'll retract the description.

Okay.

I don't think that's the point OrP was trying to make, actually.

Pretty much. The term was coined by the far right to describe the mainstream right.

This is what makes it a subjective label.

What interest? Is inciting people to commit suicide through speech a common problem in the US, one that is leading to social problems (asking seriously - my sense is that it is not, but don't actually know)? Will laws banning this act as an effective deterrent to this behavior? I would guess in general probably not just because of the nature of the act. Are the people doing this a threat to society who need to be locked up? I would guess usually not.

I would also be concerned about how broadly this would be applied. For instance, this is a pretty unusual case. I would think the more common ways this exemption would be applied would be to teenagers who egg on someone to do something dangerous.

It sounds like I might have a narrower view of criminal punishment than you. I do not think at a first glance that we should criminalize behavior that directly and predictably causes harm to other people. Rather, I focus on the effects we hope to achieve by this criminalization - typically public safety and deterrence (I know retribution as a goal is also common, but I'm opposed). I don't find the likely effects here to be worth the harm caused by locking people up or the potentially chilling effect on speech.

Poster 1. I have a history of depression and also, I think eating meat is murder.
Poster 2. Oh yeah? You should go murder yourself.

People get pretty vicious on these boards.

My legal philosophy says that we avoid these kinds of strained interpretations of existing laws just so we can charge someone for doing something horrible and depraved. The laws are the laws. Put someone in prison if they break one of them. But I think judges or prosecutors should generally avoid trying to find novel interpretations of law with which to punish people. Especially here in the States, with our overly punitive legal system, I would not want prosecutors or judges to adopt that attitude towards people's behavior. If it is that serious a threat to public safety, then the legislature should legislate it.

This seems pretty wrong.

I don't see this happening. There's an actual death in this case. If people are reluctant to encourage suicide, I think that's probably a good thing.

I trust the courts to decide the difference between flippant insults and targeted harassment.

I think this argument is persuasive. I agree that I wasn't sufficiently thinking about it from this angle. I was mostly just thinking about whether or not I think "free speech" should be an affirmative defense. But I agree with you that in this case there's probably no benefit to society in charging the person with a crime.

I'm still not as worried about this as you are, in part because the case is so unusual. I wasn't endorsing a broad new restriction on speech, only thinking about whether or not free speech should be a defense in an involuntary manslaughter case if the speech in question satisfies the requirements of that crime. But I agree that a legal interpretation that makes it more likely that the teenagers in your hypothetical would be charged is bad, and I certainly don't think that your internet forum example should be a crime.

In any case, I think you've mostly persuaded me that you're right about this. I don't quite see the slippery slope, but if the benefit isn't there in the first place then it doesn't really matter.

Directed at OrP and well named I guess. In the UK in the aftermath of the Darren Osborne Finsbury Park attack the son of one of the owners of the van hire company the attacker hired the van from posted on facebook "It's a shame they don't hire out steam rollers or tanks could have done a tidy job then."

he's been arrested for the post which I'm really unsure about and is likely to be sacked which I'm perfectly alright with. What say you.

It's obviously a disgusting thing to say, but in the US I think it would unquestionably be protected speech, and I'm OK with that, as I also am with him being fired and socially ostracized.

yeah there was a spate of arrests for facebook posts during the riots in 2011 where I thought the incitement to riot posts were extremely harshly dealt with and I'm suspicious of allowing the level of incitement deemed arrestable drop to such levels.

This is the correct answer

uh reading comprehension?

what is this supposed to mean

From the archives...

You know what's funny about this? That dragons are fantasy creatures, just like Islamophobia.

Conservatives and republicans have problems with denial when it comes to difficult subjects like Islamophobia. It may be that many of them are simply mentally lazy and have yet to do what it takes to face and handle their own prejudices.

is it mentally lazy not to buy into newspeak gibberish words?

Denial? It's easy to deny things that don't exist. I also deny the Tooth Fairy. The progressive hallucination on this subject is easily identifiable however.

A person in denial will usually persist with denial, so your continued denial is understandable. Prejudice can be very difficult to face- it is embarrassing and self-stupefying and it's hard for a person to admit they did that to themselves.

It's okay,prejudice is not a life sentence and liberating one's self from it is a personal challenge worth doing.

It's lazy, or at least very easy and looks lazy, to refer to concepts you don't understand and apparently haven't tried to understand in a denigrating way.

Your self-flagellation is noted. The liberation from your cult is possible, but perhaps unlikely for yourself.