| ▲ | _heimdall 2 hours ago |
| Threats are the gray area. I don't view words as violent action, people can say whatever they want. A person acting on it is a different story, including preparations like a person collecting materials for a bomb or something like that. I could care less if someone wants to say they're going to hurt me. My beef is when they actually try to do it. |
|
| ▲ | VectorLock 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Some people may not be as privileged to be immune to being terrorized by violent threats as you are. |
| |
| ▲ | _heimdall an hour ago | parent [-] | | If the act is only words then it doesn't require privilege, I'm honestly curious how you would connect the two. Words aren't terrorism or violent. That doesn't mean people can't interpret them that way and feel harm, but a word alone can't harm anyone. |
|
|
| ▲ | koolba 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I don't view words as violent action, people can say whatever they want. Where does that put someone calling out a public hit? It is just words after all. > I could care less if someone wants to say they're going to hurt me. My beef is when they actually try to do it. They say there’s no atheists in foxholes. |
| |
| ▲ | _heimdall 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | When you say "calling out a public hit" what do you mean exactly? Vaguely saying "someone should" is very different from offering a bounty or plotting to do it yourself. | | |
| ▲ | koolba 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Run the full range. From, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” all the way to “10K to whoever takes out heimdall”. | | |
| ▲ | _heimdall an hour ago | parent [-] | | The former isn't a legal issue, in my opinion. The latter would be as its actively offering a reward or bounty for a hit. | | |
| ▲ | Capricorn2481 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | So words aren't violent action in anyway, because you haven't acted on anything. But offering money is violent enough to be legal even though you haven't paid anyone? | | |
| ▲ | _heimdall 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Speech isn't violence because its nothing more than words and our speech is a protected right. Offering money to murder someone is almost certainly illegal because they are doing more than talking, they are choosing to collude in the act of murder and a jury is much more likely to agree there. My point wasn't that money had to change hands or be offered, I was responding to an earlier comment. A person directly taking part in plotting to commit murder I'd also likely breaking the law and likely to lose a jury trial if they are actively plotting a murder whether money I'd involved or not. Saying "someone should" simply isn't a plot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | unethical_ban 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Calls to violent or hateful ideology (brown people are all bad because of their skin color, judge a class of people based solely on their born traits) leads to nasty outcomes. We learned that many times through history, notably in the mid 20th century. |
| |
| ▲ | _heimdall an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The real question there is who is to blame, the person who days something hateful or the one who acts on it? Don't forget that we also learned in the 20th century that millions can support and die for genocide while only a few dozen will be charged while the rest returned home. We also learned that the winner of said conflict can wipe out entire cities and go home the victor without consequence. | |
| ▲ | charcircuit an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Believing that people's behavior is not based off born traits also will lead to nasty outcomes. | | |
|
