Serious question: I'm all for free speech, but I understand

*For clarification, I'm talking specifically about the non-violent members of these groups. I know that there are many violent members, but I think we can agree that they should be punished, because that's no longer freedom of speech.

>>138659353
I'm not a college liberal. I'm a moderate who makes a living for myself, and thinks that both sides have good points. I'm all for the free market, and small government, which I suppose makes me a Republican at this point. I voted for Trump. I just wanted to hear what /pol/ had to say about this whole alt-right and alt-left mess.

>>138658974
Your stupid example is only a crime if there isn't actually a fire. What some of the more extreme commenters are doing is notifying the people of the "fire" raging unchecked against humanity.

>>138658974
All speech should be free, law should not concern itself with trifles. If someone acts, you fuck em up, til then let em mofuckers talk.

Seriously if you cant come up with good arguments against Nazism you don't deserve to control the culture, I've lost a lot of faith in liberal intellectuals but im fucking SURE you can do this one

>>138658974

"Endanger" has a legal definition, and it's not what you think it is.

>>138659941
Nazism killed millions of people. If that's not proof enough for you, I don't know what would be.

>>138658974
You can run into theater and yell "fire". You'll just have to face the consequences of possible bad outcomes. Shutting opinions down without even giving a chance to defend themselves is just blatant censorship.

>>138660274
I can dig it. So what you're saying is that if a SJW thinks that all straight white men should be killed, it's perfectly legal, but if her words spark anyone to action, she would be held partially responsible for the death? That seems reasonable.

>>138660613
No thanks. Incitement laws already overreach too much. The time comes again for men to be responsible for Action and not words. Words have become absolutely meaningless in the current years.

>>138661008
/thread

>>138661008
Of course, it would have to be proven that it was her words which sparked the killer to action. If we go by what you are saying, that would mean that someone who gives the order to have someone killed would be innocent in the eyes of the law.

>>138658974
>I'm all for free speech, but I understand that you can't run into a crowded theater and yell "Fire!".

Yes you can. "Fire" is not an incitement to imminent lawless action.

File: akkoo.jpg (174KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1280x720px

>>138658974
>Fellow Akko poster on /pol/

>>138661526
Well it can cause a commotion which can injure people. I'm just using it as an example.

>>138658974
>screaming "Fire" should be illegal
I am so glad you're not in government. You can't discern between civilian douchebaggery and crime. Someone doing that in a theatre should be banned from the theatre, not sent to jail or fined by the government.

>>138661892
I don't think they should be. I'm just wondering whether or not it's comparable to a Nazi proclaiming that we should kill all the Jews, or an Antifa member yelling that we should kill all Capitalists, and whether or not any of these are punishable.

language is an extremely strong concept, language is how all sorts of legal and not so legal brainwashing occur. law, however, is built upon action and violence.

>>138660613
It'd be either too hard to prove, or too easy to fuck someone up by just pointing some twitter bullshit or whatever, but when refined and well written, law could have some good use. For starter it should apply only to heavy stuff like death or big scale disasters (for example train crash or something). In case of theater, theater management should be able to sue you if you ruin their income by driving people away with false alarm.
Main purposes of such law should be to put pressure on shitters who try to provoke others to attack them so they could cry later and play victims, on shitters like islamic imams (even though islam should be banned altogether because it's just breeding grounds for terrorism), and to ensure balance between freedom of speech and debate (you can claim whatever you want, but burden of proof lies on you).

>>138662099
the answer is no and you just have to outsmart stupid one dimensional wastemen as opposed to letting emotions take over your rationale

>>138658974
With just one link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first though forbidden or the first freedom denied. That chains us all, forever.

>>138658974
Depends what you mean by "advocate for physical violence." Is an indirect call to action ("We ought to kill all the Jews") equal to a direct call to action ("If you see a Nazis, punch them")

>>138658974
>>138659625
It's possible to use an interpretation of Tinker v. Des Moines to halt alt-right/fascist speech on campuses due to it being disruptive. Same for SJWs depending on their methods.

>>138664548
those are both direct calls to action, anon.

>>138665526
No they aren't.

>>138658974

don't be a fag and stand up for yourself

No there is no reason to justify being against free speech. Let people "incite" all they want. If niggers are screeching "Kill Whiteyy I WILL KILL YOU" I'll be mad and prepared but if they just go back home after who cares. Its when they take actions, is when you strike

>>138665672
I don't see any distinction between the two except for one calling for murder and the other for assault

>>138658974
>You can't

Of course I can, my vocal cords work well to yell fire

>>138660613
>That seems reasonable.
Any other day I would bark at you for saying that, however, today I remembered we have young Muslims running people over with trucks because some fat fuck with a turban told them to
Maybe you do have a point

>>138666439
/thread honestly

>>138661008
what about radical Imams tho?
They seem to be very good at this incitement thing