Tea Party Responsible for shooting?

From my understanding of the supreme court's rulings, every one of your examples are "OK". According to the supreme court;

 

The Haditha Marines were exonerated, just sayin

 

Exonerated by the courts, but apparently not by the libs.

 

Forgoten about Jim Jones allready then! but I suppose he wasnt to blame for the action of his followers or how about Manson they convicted him on the actions of his followers

 

I draw the line at individual responsibility.

In the U.S., these acts would be protected by the First Amendment. A person could stand on a street corner 24/7 with a sign that says, "Rob A Bank" or "Kill Yourself". Agree with it or not, it's protected speech (at least in the U.S.).

Absolutely! Anyone could sit in Jeremiah Wright's racial church for 20 years if they wanted to and listen to statements like, "In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns." or "Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."[/QUOTE]

 

Manson was convicted of conspiracy. In criminal law, conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement.

If you and I sit around a table and plan to rob a bank, I give you the gun, tell you when to go inside, which teller to rob, etc., but you're the one who robs the bank while I stay at home watching Oprah, then I'm guilty of conspiracy. But, I can still stand on my street corner all day long with a sign that says, "Rob A Bank". Even if you rob a bank because you saw my sign, I'm not guilty of helping you rob a bank.

 

I completely agree with CoinOKC. I will add a couple tidbits. The last time I heard, Jonestown was in Guyana and that does not fall under US jurisdiction. Also, Manson participated in the LaBianca murders.

 

So it is ok to call someone a spick/Kike/Nigger etc to tell your congrigation to go forth and commit murder, tell the supporters of your political party to terrorize your opponents! such people are not in your eye's responsible for the results of there words? it is ok in America to spew forth racial hatred or Political hatred
Nice to see that you guy's believe such people shoudnt be held responsible for there words but if a person in a crowded cinema shouts fire and causes a stampede they are responsible LOL

 

Thank you for bringing up Jeremiah Wright! I had forgotten about the Right's obsession with him. According to the Right, Obama was influenced by Wright's hateful message but when it comes down to hateful messages from people like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, Sharron Angle, Rush Limbaugh, oh the list just goes on, well nobody is able to be influenced by them of course. Why the double standard?

 

I think you're referring to Hate Speech.

The definition of Hate Speech (per Wikipedia): Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation.[1][2] In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.[3] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. In some countries, such as the United States, hate speech laws have been held to be incompatible with free speech (emphasis mine).

Agree with it or not, in the U.S., freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed.

 

Did I say anything that would constitute a double standard? I said it was absolutely OK for someone to sit in Jeremiah Wright's racial church, didn't I?

 

It is just another double standard the Right side of this forum chooses to ignore. Heck, you think 600 = 100,000.

 

Well, I'm what you would consider "right", but I don't see it as a double standard. As long as Beck and Palin can voice their opinions then Jeremiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan can voice theirs. I don't want to shut down speech on either side. Do you?

 

No I am commenting on people been responsible for what they say I mentioned exhorting people to hate and was told the Supream court was ok with it!

Now you mentioned a person with a sign on a street corner ok I can understand that but lets assume that person is a well known Radio/TV presenter with a large following and they state on air that people should go out and kill a portion of society that he dislikes or burn there offices are they then not responsible for acts that are carried out thanks to there speach!

I am not talking about a single nutter on a street corner but someone who commands the attention of many they can be Politican, Celeb, Preacher, Guru whatever but someone whos words reach a mass audience and can have aeffect on the behaviour of a few

 

Perhaps I'm not making it clear to you. Free speech is guaranteed in the U.S. whether you're speaking to 1 person or to a million people. Televangelists do it everyday and please don't tell me they don't influence people. The content of the message is irrelevant in respect to religion, politics and even "hate speech". I don't personally like the messages that Louis Farrakhan delivers and I think he promotes violence, but I'll be damned if I would take away his right to speak.

 

To add to that, a lot of what you are arguing about could fall under religion or the press. Both have specific mention for additional protection in the Bill of Rights. I strongly object to the messages either Wright or Farrakhan espouse, but I more strongly object to anyone saying they cannot say what they have said.

 

Oh no. I agree again.

When words or opinions are to be feared, banned and/or limited, we're all screwed by default. Of course it takes a reasonably intelligent public to plow through the nonsense, but that's a whole other story.

 

Now just to remind you this was my 1st post on the subject #53

"Freedom of speach is fine as long as it refrains from placing others in danger and also as long as the speaker is aware that they are in fact responsible for the resulting actions caused by there words"

I then clarified it in post #63

"if you want freedom of speach then you have to accept responsability for your words lets put that into plain english Dont make stupid statements (Ie the Gun/Knife) dont cry wolf, dont encourage others to go out and commit crimes"

Then in post #80 I asked is it ok to exhort someone to commit suicide/murder etc
Now in there you might notice I never mentioned the constitution or Palin or anyone else I made a simple point you guy's brought up all the rest of it

 

Not that it really matters, but you're correct when you say you didn't mention them in post #80, but you did in post #65:

Also, I don't mean to verbally spar with you, but can you clarify this sentence?:

If you're referring to what I've said regarding the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, please explain. From what I can gather, you're an advocate of free speech but you feel as though it should not be as broad as what the amendment guarantees. Is that correct? On the flip side, I'm also an advocate of free speech with only very limited exceptions (yelling "fire" in a theater, threatening someone, etc.).

Without sounding facetious, let me ask you about England's freedom of speech. Does its constitution allow or guarantee a right to free speech? I'm being serious here since I haven't actually done any research on England's constitution. I'm simply curious.

 

No real need to explain myself, it's there for any one who cares to read it, as for my mention of Mrs Palin that was in direct response to a assumption that I was talking about her (Just read the posts)
I have stated that a person should be responsible for there words what exactly is ambiguouse about that? If you go on radio/tv and advocate attacks upon others then you should be accountable no matter who you are
If you make political speaches and advocate any sort of violence towards a opponant you should be held responsible for your actions
If you make a comment on national tv/radio that can directly influence some lunatic to kill or go on a shooting spree then Sir I advocate that you stand up and say out loud I am Sorry I spoke irrisponsably! Those in a position of power/responsibility actualy need to understand that there words can cause harm and should act accordingly. Now you might disagree with that but that is my view and is what I have been saying A degree of responsability quite often goes with the territory so to speak.

The UK we dont have a constitution as you know it but we do allow free speach as long as it causes no harm to others, we do not allow race/gender/religiouse hatred
Extract from wiki
In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. UK law imposes a number of limitations on freedom of speech not found in some other jurisdictions. For example, its laws recognise the crimes of incitement to racial hatred and incitement to religious hatred

We will also ban certain political broadcasts if required (for example the IRA at one time)