It's not even close to obama and his AG inciting violence against cops and riots in Ferguson MO.

Citation please... and not something pulled out of Alex Jones' backside, thank you.

---

riots in Ferguson MO.

There were no riots in Ferguson MO. That is FAKE News.

<ed>

Only 28 more states needed to call a CONVENTION OF STATES.

Guy, Just move here and be done with it.

---

Banning hate speech is a violation of our 1st amendment. If you can ban any speech at all, you are allowing those who can ban speech more power. And more power is only good in cars, it's bad in government.

This will probably be one of the very few times I actually agree with Guy. I think the best answer to bad speech (hate speech) is more speech. Making it unlawful to say something someone disagrees with will not make those thoughts go away. Put bad speech out in the free marketplace of ideas and let them die by their own merits (or lack thereof). Or to say this another way, my good friend Angela says that you can say whatever you want in public, but you are not protected from the social repercussions of what you say. Commenting publicly is an invitation for public critiquing.

The problem is when people try to fight bad speech with more speech in the case of Trump, people standing on the side of facts are then accused of bias. But I guess that's the price you pay for free speech; dealing with baseless accusations.

Mind you, I only think speech in public should be protected. In my house, I am dictator and I have every right to throw you out for anything I don't like you saying. The same goes for any other private place.

Banning hate speech is a violation of our 1st amendment. If you can ban any speech at all, you are allowing those who can ban speech more power. And more power is only good in cars, it's bad in government.

This will probably be one of the very few times I actually agree with Guy. I think the best answer to bad speech (hate speech) is more speech. Making it unlawful to say something someone disagrees with will not make those thoughts go away.

In general yes, but there are places and times where the speech is so immediate that there isn't time for reasoned speech to rebut it. Fire in a crowded theater. Jump to a person on a ledge. Get him to an assemblage. These are in the class where death or serious injury happens from the speech, verbal speech, and there is not time to stop it. Analogous is revealing the name of an operative in a foreign country which might be done in print. These place life in immediate risk and more speech can't compensate. Society is right to place restraint on this type of speech no matter if the motivation is hate or otherwise.

---

Those supporting Incarceration for Free Speech, are on the Extreme Left.

Those supporting Oppression of the Cuban People, are on the Extreme Left.

See a correlation?

Actually, they're not on the extreme left. Many of those whom you categorize as extreme on this forum are anything but extreme. Having gotten to know them and having given them a chance without playing a game of one-upsmanship as you are stuck in, I can acknowledge and appreciate that they see things differently than I. They don't need to be attacked. But ideas and viewpoints should be discussed, and understandings should happen. I don't see that here anymore. I only see partisanship getting worse and worse.

BTW: Attacking the Oppressive Extreme Left, doesn't mean supporting the Oppressive Extreme Right.

No, but it does mean you're giving one side a free pass. The more you attack what you label the "oppressive extreme left", you don't have enough time to fight what you label the "oppressive extreme right". And right now, the extreme right needs more attacking because they're going to screw up this country royally if even 10% of what they want gets accomplished, and it will set us back decades of civil progress. You always say you're in favor of women's rights, LGBTQQ rights, etc. but I never see you advocating to make it a better world for them beyond putting the onus upon them for their situation. Because you tend to put the onus on them, that's typically a righty position, that's why you get labeled as such on these forums. You attack the lefties and blame people for their own social inequality rather than fighting social inequality itself. People would probably react to you differently if your words matched up with your actions and your thinking less binary.

Banning hate speech is a violation of our 1st amendment. If you can ban any speech at all, you are allowing those who can ban speech more power. And more power is only good in cars, it's bad in government.

This will probably be one of the very few times I actually agree with Guy. I think the best answer to bad speech (hate speech) is more speech. Making it unlawful to say something someone disagrees with will not make those thoughts go away.

In general yes, but there are places and times where the speech is so immediate that there isn't time for reasoned speech to rebut it. Fire in a crowded theater. Jump to a person on a ledge. Get him to an assemblage. These are in the class where death or serious injury happens from the speech, verbal speech, and there is not time to stop it. Analogous is revealing the name of an operative in a foreign country which might be done in print. These place life in immediate risk and more speech can't compensate. Society is right to place restraint on this type of speech no matter if the motivation is hate or otherwise.

Obviously I agree with many of those limitations. Reason and ration should be exercised and there will always e exceptions to every rule. But it's a very fine line that must be carefully balanced, IMO. Things can quickly become slippery slopes and I'd hate to see the scales tip one way or the other (government oppression vs irresponsible speech).

And to clarify my position for the topic at hand: I think Trump was very irresponsible with his speech then, he was irresponsible the entire campaign trail, and he continues to be an embarrassment to the entire United States as President. And I think it is an indictment of the American people who continue to support him that contribute to his irresponsible speech. But I stop short of charges being brought against him because it won't solve the problem or do anything about those that actually think like him. I can only hope the American people wisen up and realize their mistake in 2018 and 2020 before it's too late.

Those supporting Oppression of the Cuban People, are on the Extreme Left.

Clyde wasn't the lefty's that started talking to Cuba ergo : Obama and is not he a Democrat
Yet I seem to recall it's the Right side that didn't wish to do anything but keep the status que
And I don't think it was the extreme right that wished this .

---

ozzFan this is how we treat hate speech and guess who is trying to change 18C of the act ??

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-30/18c-racial-discrimination-act-changes-defeated-in-senate/8402792

You may also wish to look up what it's all about . Seeing as Australia is the most successful multicultural country in the world
we understand what hate speech is and do not approve of it .

---

You may also wish to look up what it's all about . Seeing as Australia is the most successful multicultural country in the world
we understand what hate speech is and do not approve of it .

Germany has some extremely tough restrictions on Nazi speech. I think they are over broad and target innocent speech. But, I can understand the need of some to over compensate for the shame and guilt they feel and attempt to erase the past.

Sometimes jerks need to be allowed to spew their bile, if for no other reason than it allows them to be tracked. Quiet lone wolves are deadly.

---

But I stop short of charges being brought against him because it won't solve the problem or do anything about those that actually think like him.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39391

(5) "Riot" means a public disturbance involving an assemblage of five (5) or more
persons which by tumultuous and violent conduct creates grave danger of damage
or injury to property or persons or substantially obstructs law enforcement or other
government function.
...
(1) A person is guilty of inciting to riot when he incites or urges five (5) or more
persons to create or engage in a riot.
(2) Inciting to riot is a Class A misdemeanor.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2102

(a) As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

I also think that charges against him will not stop others who think like him, which is the problem. However it does not mean that he is innocent or should be given a pass for his conduct.

At present I think the civil case is the best course and I hope the people who were roughed up win big. That might teach him that his loud mouth has consequences and even all his money and lawyers can't fix it.

---

Sometimes jerks need to be allowed to spew their bile, if for no other reason than it allows them to be tracked. Quiet lone wolves are deadly

In a way I agree with you however if you don't have laws then you can't take action . You can still spew all the hate speech you wish here but if you do then you may just end up in court sued witch is why we have the laws we do . You will not be arrested but it means you will be taken to court and it's going to cost you heaps of doe . Having such laws if done correctly are no barrier to free speech as some have said society will punish you witch can get out of control so better to just file a complaint with the HRC and if they deem it to be against the act you then go to court and sue the hell of who ever said what they said .

You do have to be careful with hate speech as if it's said enough then people like sheep hop on board the bus and the next thing you know another Hitler comes to power . .

Oh right isn't that happening now with Trumpland hehehehehe

---

I also think that charges against him will not stop others who think like him, which is the problem. However it does not mean that he is innocent or should be given a pass for his conduct.

There's a metal song by Three Days Grace called "Let's Start a Riot". Would performing this song in public with the effect of pumping some people up be irresponsible speech? Or would this be protected like Ozzy's Suicide Solution was protected speech in the '80s?

I also think that charges against him will not stop others who think like him, which is the problem. However it does not mean that he is innocent or should be given a pass for his conduct.

There's a metal song by Three Days Grace called "Let's Start a Riot". Would performing this song in public with the effect of pumping some people up be irresponsible speech? Or would this be protected like Ozzy's Suicide Solution was protected speech in the '80s?

Depends on the context.
At a music concert probably wouldn't cause any problems. Therefore not irresponsible speech.
But at a rally organised by anti-establishment group, to pump up the followers, could be regarded as irresponsible speech, especially if violence ensues.

---

I also think that charges against him will not stop others who think like him, which is the problem. However it does not mean that he is innocent or should be given a pass for his conduct.

There's a metal song by Three Days Grace called "Let's Start a Riot". Would performing this song in public with the effect of pumping some people up be irresponsible speech? Or would this be protected like Ozzy's Suicide Solution was protected speech in the '80s?

Depends on the context.
At a music concert probably wouldn't cause any problems. Therefore not irresponsible speech.
But at a rally organised by anti-establishment group, to pump up the followers, could be regarded as irresponsible speech, especially if violence ensues.

I think you have hit the crux of mens rae. Did you intend your speech to cause violence to be done? A court might also look at reckless disregard in that intention or lack thereof.

---

@MK
Looks like there might be a White House job for you, Please, can someone brief the president on the unemployment rate?, looks like the President gets his "facts" from Guy.

---

I also think that charges against him will not stop others who think like him, which is the problem. However it does not mean that he is innocent or should be given a pass for his conduct.

There's a metal song by Three Days Grace called "Let's Start a Riot". Would performing this song in public with the effect of pumping some people up be irresponsible speech? Or would this be protected like Ozzy's Suicide Solution was protected speech in the '80s?

Depends on the context.
At a music concert probably wouldn't cause any problems. Therefore not irresponsible speech.
But at a rally organised by anti-establishment group, to pump up the followers, could be regarded as irresponsible speech, especially if violence ensues.

That's not what the family of John McCollum argued. But that begs the question, why is a music concert not irresponsible speech but an anti-establishment rally is? I would say a metal concert is very much anti-establishment in much the same way.

I also think that charges against him will not stop others who think like him, which is the problem. However it does not mean that he is innocent or should be given a pass for his conduct.

There's a metal song by Three Days Grace called "Let's Start a Riot". Would performing this song in public with the effect of pumping some people up be irresponsible speech? Or would this be protected like Ozzy's Suicide Solution was protected speech in the '80s?

Depends on the context.
At a music concert probably wouldn't cause any problems. Therefore not irresponsible speech.
But at a rally organised by anti-establishment group, to pump up the followers, could be regarded as irresponsible speech, especially if violence ensues.

That's not what the family of John McCollum argued. But that begs the question, why is a music concert not irresponsible speech but an anti-establishment rally is? I would say a metal concert is very much anti-establishment in much the same way.

At a concert the fans are going for the experience and the "music?" and having shared a train with about 200 returning heavy metal fans after a concert in Brum, I would say 90% were not in a fit condition to start a riot, wouldn't have been surprised if some missed their stop.
But at a rally, presumably to protest about something they disagree with, and protests do get out of control, anything to exacerbate the situation, like playing loudly "Let's Start a Riot" has to be irresponsible speech.

---

I also think that charges against him will not stop others who think like him, which is the problem. However it does not mean that he is innocent or should be given a pass for his conduct.

There's a metal song by Three Days Grace called "Let's Start a Riot". Would performing this song in public with the effect of pumping some people up be irresponsible speech? Or would this be protected like Ozzy's Suicide Solution was protected speech in the '80s?

Depends on the context.
At a music concert probably wouldn't cause any problems. Therefore not irresponsible speech.
But at a rally organised by anti-establishment group, to pump up the followers, could be regarded as irresponsible speech, especially if violence ensues.

That's not what the family of John McCollum argued. But that begs the question, why is a music concert not irresponsible speech but an anti-establishment rally is? I would say a metal concert is very much anti-establishment in much the same way.

At a concert the fans are going for the experience and the "music?" and having shared a train with about 200 returning heavy metal fans after a concert in Brum, I would say 90% were not in a fit condition to start a riot, wouldn't have been surprised if some missed their stop.
But at a rally, presumably to protest about something they disagree with, and protests do get out of control, anything to exacerbate the situation, like playing loudly "Let's Start a Riot" has to be irresponsible speech.

Politically motivated people are going to a rally for the experience and to be involved. Presumably most people at a political rally are not really there to start a riot either. I think it's a slippery slope you're on and we should err on the side of freedom.

So what if I'm riding home with a bunch of people that just went to a political rally or a rock concert and I want to re-live the event so I start listening to something and it sets someone else off. Is that my fault? Is it "irresponsible" of me? Should I have to prove I had no intention of starting a riot? Guilty until proven innocent?

No moral or ethical person will defend or dismiss an Evil, to stop another Evil.

Things aren't so black and white. You're too binary; you're too quick to label things evil (or is that Evil with a capital E?). They are merely different viewpoints. If you disagree, then tell them why you disagree and provide a persuasive argument as to why they're wrong. Vilifying them and acting as judge, jury, and executioner will not help the situation. You're not going to win the war of thought with absolutes. As a former history professor, you should know this.