6 ms·
If it emboldens them to commit an illegal act, arrest them. If "emboldens" just means that they are speaking in a venue you frequent, then that isn't a problem
by koheripbal 6y ago
If it emboldens them to commit an illegal act, arrest them.
If "emboldens" just means that they are speaking in a venue you frequent, then that isn't a problem.
> "It has a chilling effect."
The irony is that you are using a term that is actually a consequence of the actions you propose.
- pas 6y agoI have no problem with citing them. Just as there's traffic court, there could be a your're-a-fucking-bigot court. Enough strikes and you're out. (Yes, the the problem of state-approved reality is very obviously hard. Yet that's basically what Germany does by criminalizing denial of certain facts about WWII.) I'm perfectly aware. There's no irony. It's the dilemma of tolerance. Using oppression to minimize oppression. A chilling effect on undesirable ideas to counter their spread to counter the growth of groups whose presence and actions similarly lead to chilling effect. The not so subtle difference is that one group sometimes commits acts of terror. Yes, giving this capability officially to the state has serious consequences. Though it's not like states doesn't already have the capacity monopolized (and alas it's not like there are no abuses of state capacity without nowadays).