6 ms·

> When it starts to get dangerous, yes. People are inspired toward violence when they believe... I see this argument a lot, but it fails to address the clear d

> When it starts to get dangerous, yes. People are inspired toward violence when they believe... I see this argument a lot, but it fails to address the clear distinction between beliefs and actions. If people are actually violent, we have clear laws to deal with those actions. If the argument is that certain beliefs shouldn't be allowed because they could be construed as "inspiring violence", then I'd love to hear about how tolerant you are towards Islam's idea of jihad or countless others who believe violence is justified in circumstances that you disagree with.

slg 6y ago
>I see this argument a lot, but it fails to address the clear distinction between beliefs and actions. If people are actually violent, we have clear laws to deal with those actions. Why outlaw threats and fighting words then? They aren't violence. Some of us want to stop easily predictable violence before it gets to the point of actual violence. >If the argument is that certain beliefs shouldn't be allowed because they could be construed as "inspiring violence", then I'd love to hear about how tolerant you are towards Islam's idea of jihad or countless others who believe violence is justified in circumstances that you disagree with. It is curious that you use Islam as your example here. Various religions preach violence. The Old Testament establishes the death penalty for people who break the Sabbath. What matters is the actual practice and how likely they are to inspire violence. The QAnon conspiracies are more dangerous in this regard than thousand plus year old religions.
- curiousgeorgio 6y ago
  > Some of us want to stop easily predictable violence before it gets to the point of actual violence. Are you being serious? I honestly can't tell. This has played out in countless movies and books, and the result is never good. It has also played out in real life, and the result is even worse. > What matters is the actual practice... Bingo! Sounds like maybe you're beginning to see the error in trying to police thoughtcrime. It's the actions that matter, not the beliefs alone.
  - slg 6y ago
    Yes, I am serious. The problem is there is no clear delineated line between "thoughtcrime" and plain old crime prevention. Where is the line for you when a threat of violence is equivalent to violence? When does a thought become a plan? Threats are just words, so I imagine I can threaten to kill you. What about if those threats are through deliberate and premeditated actions like mailing you a death threat? Is it any different if I tell other people to attack you? Those are just words, right? Is it different if I pay them? Can I brandish a knife if I am 20 feet away from you? I don't pose an immediate threat in that instance. Can I pull a gun on you without any fear of reprisal? That isn't a direct act of violence either yet. Do I need to pull the trigger before you respond?
    - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
      > Where is the line for you when a threat of violence is equivalent to violence? The line is "imminent lawless action" [1], with case law clarifying that "advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time" is not considered "imminent" (and therefore protected free speech). It's a pretty clear line, and one that most of the censored material being discussed objectively does not cross. Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are within their rights as private companies to enforce content rules as they wish, but these recent censorship actions have strong implications as to their protections under Section 230, and are alarming insofar as they represent a trend that crosses the line of free speech protections normally recognized by the government and content platforms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
      - slg 6y ago
        I wasn't asking you a legal question. We all know that QAnon isn't literally illegal. I was asking you a series of moral questions, many of which can't be answered with "imminent lawless action". For example, is it considered a "thoughtcrime" if the danger isn't imminent? If someone is working on detailed plans to kill the president, but the plan would take multiple years, should this person be stopped or should they be allowed to continue their plans until the danger is imminent?

slg 6y ago

>I see this argument a lot, but it fails to address the clear distinction between beliefs and actions. If people are actually violent, we have clear laws to deal with those actions. Why outlaw threats and fighting words then? They aren't violence. Some of us want to stop easily predictable violence before it gets to the point of actual violence. >If the argument is that certain beliefs shouldn't be allowed because they could be construed as "inspiring violence", then I'd love to hear about how tolerant you are towards Islam's idea of jihad or countless others who believe violence is justified in circumstances that you disagree with. It is curious that you use Islam as your example here. Various religions preach violence. The Old Testament establishes the death penalty for people who break the Sabbath. What matters is the actual practice and how likely they are to inspire violence. The QAnon conspiracies are more dangerous in this regard than thousand plus year old religions.

curiousgeorgio 6y ago
> Some of us want to stop easily predictable violence before it gets to the point of actual violence. Are you being serious? I honestly can't tell. This has played out in countless movies and books, and the result is never good. It has also played out in real life, and the result is even worse. > What matters is the actual practice... Bingo! Sounds like maybe you're beginning to see the error in trying to police thoughtcrime. It's the actions that matter, not the beliefs alone.
- slg 6y ago
  Yes, I am serious. The problem is there is no clear delineated line between "thoughtcrime" and plain old crime prevention. Where is the line for you when a threat of violence is equivalent to violence? When does a thought become a plan? Threats are just words, so I imagine I can threaten to kill you. What about if those threats are through deliberate and premeditated actions like mailing you a death threat? Is it any different if I tell other people to attack you? Those are just words, right? Is it different if I pay them? Can I brandish a knife if I am 20 feet away from you? I don't pose an immediate threat in that instance. Can I pull a gun on you without any fear of reprisal? That isn't a direct act of violence either yet. Do I need to pull the trigger before you respond?
  - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
    > Where is the line for you when a threat of violence is equivalent to violence? The line is "imminent lawless action" [1], with case law clarifying that "advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time" is not considered "imminent" (and therefore protected free speech). It's a pretty clear line, and one that most of the censored material being discussed objectively does not cross. Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are within their rights as private companies to enforce content rules as they wish, but these recent censorship actions have strong implications as to their protections under Section 230, and are alarming insofar as they represent a trend that crosses the line of free speech protections normally recognized by the government and content platforms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
    - slg 6y ago
      I wasn't asking you a legal question. We all know that QAnon isn't literally illegal. I was asking you a series of moral questions, many of which can't be answered with "imminent lawless action". For example, is it considered a "thoughtcrime" if the danger isn't imminent? If someone is working on detailed plans to kill the president, but the plan would take multiple years, should this person be stopped or should they be allowed to continue their plans until the danger is imminent?