Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 04:48:20 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [OT] German politician successfully prosecuted for telling the truth
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <20240522125702.0000756a@example.com> <v2obln$1ubc9$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-34D386.15435423052024@news.giganews.com> <v2ou1v$24ted$1@dont-email.me> <U3CdnSvI9LTfnM37nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> <v2q9me$2ce49$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-0395EB.11531224052024@news.giganews.com> <v2s7qs$2q6fu$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <v2s7qs$2q6fu$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 61
Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!s1-1.netnews.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 09:48:21 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 3372
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17d2b258960d78e1$114350$2863996$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 3691

On 5/25/24 3:34 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 5/24/24 2:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <v2q9me$2ce49$1@dont-email.me>,
>>   moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/23/2024 10:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On May 23, 2024 at 7:29:19 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> So, if you mean to defend against this "incitement of hatred"
>>>>>>> charge, you'll have to argue either that the very concept is
>>>>>>> unconstitutional
>>>>>> Well, we're talking about Germany here not America, so 
>>>>>> 'unconstitutional'
>>>>>> isn't on the table, but yes, if this kind of law were to be passed 
>>>>>> here,
>>>>>> it would absolutely without question be unconstitutional.
>>>>>>> or that there's no valid reason it applies here.
>>>>>> There's no valid reason it should apply anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet "incitement to hate" is a thing you recognize and deplore. (Isn't
>>>>> it?)
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Then I venture that you're purer than most. How do you characterize,
>>> e.g., a speech alleging that Jews drink the blood of infants? Isn't
>>> there a key difference to saying, e.g., Jews are Martians?
>>
>> Cattle can be incited to action.
>>
>> Humans are responsible for their own actions. You don't get to duck
>> responsibility for rioting or hating or whatever by claiming someone
>> incited you and you became a mindless automaton incapable of independent
>> thought or action.
> 
> And our resident "lawyer" shows us yet another class he ducked out on.
> 
>> Rioting, Inciting to Riot, and Related Offenses
>>
>> Federal law defines a riot as a public disturbance involving three or 
>> more persons engaging in acts of violence with a clear and present 
>> danger of damage to property or injury to people. The law includes 
>> threats of violence if those involved could immediately act on the 
>> threat.
>>
>> Under federal law, inciting a riot (18 U.S. Code Section 2101) 
>> includes acts of "organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in 
>> a riot" and urging or instigating others to riot.
>>
>> The criminal code clarifies that incitement is not the same as simply 
>> advocating ideas or expressing beliefs in speech or writing. In order 
>> to qualify as incitement, the speech must advocate violence, the 
>> rightness of violence, or the right to commit violent acts.
> 
> Jesus, of course you can be incited to violence, and it is illegal.
> Christ sakes...


I'm sure the white supremacists claim they were 'insighted' to violence.