Elliot Rodgers 2.0, though more like 8000.0 or more. I have been following Reddits that post the stuff incels say on the darknet, and it is absolutely horrifying to read what their ideal society looks like. For women, they'll never see it, as not much is visible from windowless basement cells.
Dark side of the internet lets idiots support each other in their stupidity.
There needs to be better law enforcement in terms of uttering threats or sharing harmful/abusive desires and motivations online. I get there is freedom of expression, but that does not mean it should be legal to collaborate ways to harm women, non-Caucasian men and children of all ethnicities. It should be treated similar to looking up how to build bombs.
1st, why not just say "harm people" instead of adding qualifiers? DO you think its okay to harm Caucasian men?
2nd, it is completely legal to look up how to build bombs. It's illegal to build bombs. It's hard to prosecute ideas over actions. People can sit around and bullshit over getting back at society or whoever and as long as that is as far as it goes, its completely legal.
When will people learn... And alyssandra, I agree with your statement. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you can hurl slurs around like nobody's business. Hate speech should be outlawed no matter what.
THen you no longer have free speech. You have government controlled speech. No thanks. Hate speech laws end up being biased against groups of people.
I'm not that up on this situation, but here's the thing; inciting violence is not protected by the first amendment, nor is it protected in most other countries either. If at any point this person was suggesting violent actions should be undertaken then they were waving their right to free speech.
Not quite correct. You still have free speech. You can suggest things but for incitement to be criminally prosecutable, it has be "intended, likely and imminent". "We should send all the ++++ back to ++++++." is not incitement while screaming "burn this ++++++ down" to a group of angry protestors who immediately do so is.
https://freespeechdebate.com/case/the-brandenburg-test-for-incitement-to-violence/
Similarly, if he was presenting his own discriminatory views as fact then that would be slander which is also not protected by free speech and as such he was waving the right there also.
Slander is specific. "All ++++++ are violent" is bigoted by not slander but "John is a violent ******because of ********" could be slander. If he actually is violent or has a record involving a violent action, then it isn't.
It's totally possible to be pro free speech without fully embracing hate speech as a part of that freedom. There's a world of difference between "I personally hate this group because of x reason" and "these people should all leave or die because they're x bs reason".
As far as this case goes, I cant say for sure which case it is because it's not news story I particularly know much about. So I can't really make any judgement calls there but the notion that hate speech in its entirety is protected is inherently false and the video you posted explains that itself albeit unintentionally.
Speech is speech under US law. Once you start defining hate speech, where does it stop?
As for the shooting? I doubt censoring him would have made an ounce of difference. The bigger concern here was, as per usual, a person who really shouldn't have been able to get their hands on a gun was easily able to get their hands on a gun.
Saw plenty of chances for people to prosecute this guy and people choose not to.
