3 ms·

"Is there actual evidence of that? I mean, which exact "influential figures" lead to this crime?" To the former, I imagine this was brought up as an example. W

"Is there actual evidence of that? I mean, which exact "influential figures" lead to this crime?" To the former, I imagine this was brought up as an example. Whether you think it's the strongest example seems immaterial unless you're saying there is no example at all in the history of the world? To the latter, that seems to be the exact purpose of courts and lawmaking, no? To take the murky uncertainty of life and create a reasonable line of evidence that binds two points together. That we, in American society, have decided not to draw the line between those two points to see if they intersect the same victim is our choice. Unless you believe no ones words are influential in any context?

akira2501 4y ago
> To the former, I imagine this was brought up as an example. So we're to argue with your imagination? > Whether you think it's the strongest example seems immaterial unless you're saying there is no example at all in the history of the world? I'm saying you're implying things without any proof. I think you should have proof before you consider depriving people of their rights. > To the latter, that seems to be the exact purpose of courts and lawmaking, no? Precisely. If you break the law, you are charged with a crime. If you were incited to do so, that person will be charged with a crime. So.. what reason is there to restrain free speech? > Unless you believe no ones words are influential in any context? I don't believe prior restraint will solve your problem, and other than these vague assertions, you've provided no concrete argument as to how they will.
- usernomdeguerre 4y ago
  "So we're to argue with your imagination?" To be clear, not my imagination as i'm not the original poster. Nor anyone's imagination since the act of violence did, in fact, occur. A poor choice of words, on my part.
  - akira2501 4y ago
    > Nor anyone's imagination since the act of violence did, in fact, occur. And the open question, still, is "was the violence precipitated by too much free speech? Is there literally any evidence of that?" This whole thread is based on this assumption, and people are happy to argue a point because they "imagine" the evidence for it exists. If this is actually the case, this is absolutely stunning.

akira2501 4y ago

> To the former, I imagine this was brought up as an example. So we're to argue with your imagination? > Whether you think it's the strongest example seems immaterial unless you're saying there is no example at all in the history of the world? I'm saying you're implying things without any proof. I think you should have proof before you consider depriving people of their rights. > To the latter, that seems to be the exact purpose of courts and lawmaking, no? Precisely. If you break the law, you are charged with a crime. If you were incited to do so, that person will be charged with a crime. So.. what reason is there to restrain free speech? > Unless you believe no ones words are influential in any context? I don't believe prior restraint will solve your problem, and other than these vague assertions, you've provided no concrete argument as to how they will.

usernomdeguerre 4y ago
"So we're to argue with your imagination?" To be clear, not my imagination as i'm not the original poster. Nor anyone's imagination since the act of violence did, in fact, occur. A poor choice of words, on my part.
- akira2501 4y ago
  > Nor anyone's imagination since the act of violence did, in fact, occur. And the open question, still, is "was the violence precipitated by too much free speech? Is there literally any evidence of that?" This whole thread is based on this assumption, and people are happy to argue a point because they "imagine" the evidence for it exists. If this is actually the case, this is absolutely stunning.