Ahh but just because we are for something because we believe it is a constitutional issue does not mean we can not also point to benefits from such things
I should clear up something - mostly, in this thread, I had a visceral response to the dissembling crap being put out regarding the site being "nothing" more than a "white pride" fiesta, and "white pride" as really being as innocuous as good ole baseball. My bullshit meter sort of filled quickly, and I disgorged it of its contents. My third point in the initial post - I wasn't arguing the site is illegal, by everything I've been arguing, and should be shut down. I was merely taking issue with the notion that free speech is absolutely disbarred from limitation. The site has probably already withstood judicial review. On the accomplice thing - again, they are just using words. They've not lifted a finger to harm the victim. But because the accomplice incites to violence, he is not protected. I would argue how different is that from a march down Skokie chanting "today, if you're a patriot, take Jewish blood"? (they didn't by the way - in the celebrated case, the ACLU successfully defended this infamous march as protected under Free Speech - mostly, because the march was not a direct call to action as much as a blind spewing of hate for the Jewish people).
That's cool - but because the issue was one of principle, and nothing else, I felt it was important to point out neither one of us was talking over epiphenomenal benefits.
I can respect and understand that, even I can admit that of course there are extremes Yes but he's there when it happened, many times that's all it takes to be an 'accomplice' words or not. Plus giving orders, even if he's not lifting a finger by the law he is still part of the crime. This really is far out of touch from just speech, as he's actively participating even if he's not 'lifting' a finger.
bottom-line: i want it to be legal to have the kind of website I have. it's not directly offending anyone, but someone surely could "file a complaint" saying it offends them. and if this country doesn't have what I want.. F it, I'll make my own country. In the middle of PA and say I had a treaty with America cause i'm a "native" here and i'll crinkle up some old paper with scribbles on it. who says the government has more rights than me? since when are they better? Every civilization where the government got too involved, their nation eventually crumbled. that's why we were the best. and all the power that's been invested into our federal government, i've never seen or heard of them doing anything right. with all the money they have and all the people they steal from, I haven't seen one damn good thing come outta the federal departments. not one.
Is it clearly laid out in the law that the inciting of violence has to be willful and knowingly done? Manson and the whole "do something witchy" thing comes to mind. He didn't actually say kill anyone yet was held to be the inciter. On another note is ok to say "such and such deserves to die" but not to say " you should kill such and such"?
I don't think so. Standing by while someone is being harmed doesn't really matter, in most jurisdictions - Seinfeld's "Good Samaritan Law" is largely fiction (although the law is on the books in Massachusetts, the witnessing citizen is only required to report the crime, not assist in stopping it), and this law is, to my knowledge, the only one of its kind in the nation. Once the words to incitement are uttered, however, the line is crossed. Not protected free speech. This test has been undertaken in many, many cases, the one I cited being only one. The entirety of my argument rests on the fact of limitations. Once you admit those, it can no longer be held as an inviolable breach of liberty to say speech is not absolutely unfettered.
In the Urban Dictionary the definition for a nig is "the screw over itself " particularly when someone has found something that benefits them in some way, and manages to take the benefits for himself from another
Did you see this site is recruiting for the KKK in the local and regional section? Under strategies and tactics they talk about how to spread white supremacy. This is a hate group. I love freedom of speech and all, but they need to STFU! LOL
If they don't talk about it openly and post their flawed ideals on the internet, how would anyone be able to debunk them? Know your enemy.
They said on the forum, ..."Yes, the KKK is still a powerful group of partisans for the White race with something like 50,000 to 100,000 members, most of them paramilitary sleepers. You are also right about some of them just playing right now, many of those in the public spotlight anyway. However, there are Klans and there are Klans, its the invisible Klans that will prove most useful in the coming struggle, but some visibility is still needed....So, The Knights operate mostly unseen in our political efforts and will continue to forge ties and build and maintain inroads to different state legislatures as well as Congress and the Presidency." It is frightening. They are just waiting for the right conditions, the right time...
Guess Gtech didn't take up his dance card after all. Much like their pal Adolph, they finally realized that if they were ever to go anywhere with this crap, they need an air of respectability. So you have David Duke in a suit, running for Congress, etc. Funny thing, though, Duke took off the pointy headed cloak and found his head is now permanently pointed.
It would not be a good Samaritan law though, as you are actively involved in the attack. In most jurisdictions just being in a car with someone for example can make you an accomplice, this has nothing to do with good samaritan laws. As far as the 'test being undertaken' real quick and not to get into this much as I just woke up 'yeah I'm that lazy' #1 Not always does the supreme court or other court rule in ways that many feel are constitutional. There are many rulings that those with a libertarian mind would consider unconstitutional. The rulings made often come from what the justice feels as his/her common sense and not directly onto the constitution IMHO. #2 Of course one can not scream fire in a crowded theatre, just as someone actively telling someone to kill someone is not free speech. That however is not really a 'speech' issue, it is in fact a crime to tell someone to kill someone just as it is to pay someone to kill someone. I honestly don't see that as a speech issue, as you are actively participating in the act. #3 I could see where people could see me not making sense here I however in my mind am able to seperate the two things, speech from actively supporting a crime. Such as a man tells somone I'll pay you $2,000.00 to kill my wife. Even if no payment is made, it is illegal and honestly is not a speech issue but an involvement in committing the act.