Property data collector

[George Hatch]

Civil is civil. Not criminal. Duh.

 

[J Grant]

Civil judgments can be very expensive.
Sometimes, if a criminal charge doesn't stick because of a technicality, the lawyers go after a civil charge.

 

[J Grant]

Threatening people or inciting violence or committing fraud or robbing banks are acts, regardless of how they're communicated. Aside from criminal acts, insulting people or engaging in opinion and commentary or even trading "disinformation" are not crimes. Nor should they be, especially when considering that several examples of the types of "disinformation" you're constantly sniveling about turned out to be true, not false.

If you can't sell the merits of your worldview - as just happened in the last election cycle - that's your problem. Same as what happens when my worldview gets rejected by the electorate.

Meanwhile, I have the right to consume any source of news and information or "objectionable speech" I want and if you don't like it you can go pound sand.

Yes, you and I are free to consume what we want.

Are we allowed to comment on it? According to you, we should not, everybody should just keep their mouths shut.

However, we have seen from history that when a mass of people consume lies and hate messaging, stoking simmering resentment against a person, a people, or a religion, it can erupt into violence and even genocide. Afterward, the fiery speeches and false rhetoric look pathetic, and it is asked, how could people have believed that?

Voltaire- If I can get you to believe absurdities, I can get you to commit atrocities.

 

[Dublin ohio]

if a criminal charge doesn't stick because of a technicality, the lawyers go after a civil charge.

There have been numerous civil suits filed even when somebody is found not guilty due to the evidence and a jury decision, but civil cases are still filed. Mostly because they can appeal to feelz instead of the law

 

[George Hatch]

Yes, you and I are free to consume what we want.

Are we allowed to comment on it? According to you, we should not, everybody should just keep their mouths shut.

However, we have seen from history that when a mass of people consume lies and hate messaging, stoking simmering resentment against a person, a people, or a religion, it can erupt into violence and even genocide. Afterward, the fiery speeches and false rhetoric look pathetic, and it is asked, how could people have believed that?

Voltaire- If I can get you to believe absurdities, I can get you to commit atrocities.

I never said anything about "not allowed to comment". That's you spinning tales again.

 

[George Hatch]

Civil judgments can be very expensive.
Sometimes, if a criminal charge doesn't stick because of a technicality, the lawyers go after a civil charge.

If an ACT doesn't meet all the elements of a prohibited offense then that isn't a technicality. That's basic.

I am free to say the following words on this forum:

"This is a stickup. Hand over your wallet, car keys and your cash". ​

Merely saying those words here was not a crime because the words themselves are not the act. Not until uttered during the attempt to rob someone, at which point it is the attempt to rob that is the prohibited act.

 

[J Grant]

If an ACT doesn't meet all the elements of a prohibited offense then that isn't a technicality. That's basic.

I am free to say the following words on this forum:

"This is a stickup. Hand over your wallet, car keys and your cash". ​

Merely saying those words here was not a crime because the words themselves are not the act. Not until uttered during the attempt to rob someone, at which point it is the attempt to rob that is the prohibited act.

I am not a legal expert, but if you said that slightly differently and or made an effort to spread it as a command and vulnerable people listened to it and started committing robberies, there might be accountability.

As grownups, we have resposnoibltiies. Does free speech mean blurring out anything that comes to mind or saying devious things for devious results? It can, but again, it can have consequences.
Freedom of speech also means choosing not to say X or post Y.

 

[George Hatch]

I used to make arrests for criminal conduct - that's how much practice I've had at assembling and articulating all the elements of whatever offense I was alleging justified that arrest.

The words themselves are not an act. Not outside the context of a prohibited act.

If I yell "FIRE" here at home, it's just a word. If I [yell it in a crowded theater knowing how people will react to the point of people getting physically hurt] that goes beyond mere speech.

You keep raising the nazi example. I could recite any of his speeches in the public square and that would not amount to an act. That is, I could do it here in America where we have the 1A. I obviously couldn't do it in several countries in Europe because they don't have that right.

 

[J Grant]

I used to make arrests for criminal conduct - that's how much practice I've had at assembling and articulating all the elements of whatever offense I was alleging justified that arrest.

The words themselves are not an act. Not outside the context of a prohibited act.

If I yell "FIRE" here at home, it's just a word. If I [yell it in a crowded theater knowing how people will react to the point of people getting physically hurt] that goes beyond mere speech.

You keep raising the nazi example. I could recite any of his speeches in the public square and that would not amount to an act. That is, I could do it here in America where we have the 1A. I obviously couldn't do it in several countries in Europe because they don't have that right.

That is the problem when people want to skulk around and cause violence and hate but think they are okay with it because they did not directly order it.

Hiler did not stand there and say "Kill the Jews." But history, except for you perhaps, understands that his speeches with their fiery heroical about how the Jewish elite controlled banking, and how nationalistic pride was being stripped from Germany, and Eugenics for the master race, etc., npsited and justified the genocide.

Certain elements of his speeches are similar to the Trump speeches where nationalist pride is used as a wedge to separate us from them - us as the "Real Americans" and THEM as anybody else -it could be immigrants, or gays, or folks of a different faith, or democrats and liberals.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

That is the problem when people want to skulk around and cause violence and hate but think they are okay with it because they did not directly order it.

Hiler did not stand there and say "Kill the Jews." But history, except for you perhaps, understands that his speeches with their fiery heroical about how the Jewish elite controlled banking, and how nationalistic pride was being stripped from Germany, and Eugenics for the master race, etc., npsited and justified the genocide.

Certain elements of his speeches are similar to the Trump speeches where nationalist pride is used as a wedge to separate us from them - us as the "Real Americans" and THEM as anybody else -it could be immigrants, or gays, or folks of a different faith, or democrats and liberals.

Well Hitler was in power, are you saying he didn't have control of the concentration camps?

Hitler drank water like Trump also. Us vs them is citizens vs non citizens, its not that hard.

What are you talking about immigrants and gays? Trump was the first LGBT friendly president to win for president, you are crazy and conflating immigration with illegal immigration is something a lot of disingenous people like to do without a good argument. Elon Musk is an immigrant from Africa, Vivek Rammaswamy isn't exactly some white supremacist. Democrats and liberals wanting to destroy the country and the values it was founded on is a valid complaint.

I would at least respect it more if liberals didn't play the word games to defend their indefensible positions. But that could come with introspection.