Brian

What is attacking you?

I officially predict that NYC cannot survive two minutes of totality. It'll be like Ghostbusters all over again.

Ummm... Your whateverophobia is harshing my neotraditional self-universobossarianism.

Learning to "listen" is valuable beyond measure.

Well, I don't.

It appears that way, although the courts will ultimately make that determination. If it turns out this guy was incited by speeches at the rally or by online discussions beforehand, then I suspect a good case can be built to charge those responsible for inciting that action. There may also be a possibility to charge for inciting a riot.

That said^^^, discussing the legality of an action isn't exactly the same as planning to commit it.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is itself a crime. EDIT: I added an additional comment but then noticed Aetherous had clicked the "Thank you" button so I am moving that comment to its own post.

No, I clearly did NOT stand up for the KKK. I actually described them as "twisted and hate-filled." There's a reason, though, why the First Amendment doesn't read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances -- unless someone finds your beliefs offensive." You may recall, however, that I have repeatedly said I don't think you are in a frame of mind which allows you to have this conversation.

What is it you imagine I dodged, Hancock? I'll gladly readdress whatever it was with more clarity.

It was wrong on both sides, Hancock. Attacking people in the streets is wrong, even if you don't like what they are saying. It is not only wrong but it is illegal. If we look at the official stance of the KKK, will we see a call for Lynching? Well, here it is: https://kkk.bz/platform-2/ How about the American Nazi Party? Do they officially call for violence against Jews or non-Aryans? Again, here's their official platform: http://www.americannaziparty.com/platform/index.php Seriously, take a few minutes to read those two platforms. You and I agree that they are twisted and hate-filled but they don't see it that way -- in fact, they see themselves a social justice warriors! Do I believe they just want to make the world a better place? Nope! Do they believe they just want to make the world a better place? I suspect they do.

The question of imminence is a judgement call, as is the question of likelihood of producing action. Is it possible to couch language in such a way as to instill a sense of urgency or immediacy without literally specifying a timeframe for action? I would suggest that it is, and that the situation has to be evaluated either as it happens or after the fact in order to have a reasonable perspective on both parts of the test.

Same principles apply when, for instance, BLM protestors chant "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" or "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!"

It hinges on the the language and situation of the specific speech -- if the particular communication is intended to create a clear and present danger of unlawful conduct AND it seems likely to be successful in achieving that goal then the speech itself is unlawful.

This is my understanding, too.

How old-fashioned! Those poor dears... Nothing like today's modern, liberated women:

Funny you mention that...

What, and let people make decisions for themselves??? Inconceivable!

I'm just an old lump of coal... Which election, SHINTO?

Welcome, Amy! When you say you read "it," you mean the Dao De Jing?

It is probably because of my super-duper high level of spiritual attainment. Sometimes doors just automatically open as I walk towards them, too -- stuff like that. I passed "Buddha level" (which is like Level 132 Celsius, IIRC) when I was a kid but I decided to stay here 'cause duality is kinda fun.

OK, so I might have missed that by a little. It took six hours for him to reply to a post from someone on his ignore list. Of course, it is possible he read some others earlier but that was the first time he directly responded to one so we'll use "6 hours" as the official time.

Oh, we are! We are quite grateful. Aren't we, folks?

As I've said, you misunderstand. As I've also said, you are not in a place where you are able to have this conversation. I'll leave this alone now.

You have strongly insinuated it repeatedly, Hancock. I honestly don't think you are even aware you do it because it is a deep-seated prejudice. Here's one example: "Is it right or wrong to hate another group based on your opinions of their skin color or background. The answer is obvious to most everyone. "Only those who secretly dance that line inside themselves argue for free speech and the right to peacefully protest for some inherently racist group." In no uncertain terms, you are saying that anyone who believes in free speech and the right to peacefully protest secretly believes it is right to hate based on skin color. I have been very clear, and had been very clear prior to you making this statement, in asserting that I believe in free speech and the right to peacefully assemble for EVERYONE regardless of whether I find their opinion abhorrent.