Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[Meadmaker]

Marissa Alexander got sentenced to twenty years for firing a warning shot.

I wonder how much time she would have gotten if she used a can of spray paint and a match to keep her abusive husband at bay.

I'm sure the Nazi dude at Charlottesville will be convicted and sentenced as well, but the point is that there is videotape of exactly what he did, and it did not include firing a gun at anyone, and the person he was threatening with his gun was in fact himself threatening people with a weapon at the time. 332nd characterized the initial pointing at Mr. Long as a "misfire" but I don't think that's accurate. His actions included firing a warning shot into the ground at someone's feet. That's still generally considered a crime. We generally don't want people discharging weapons in a crowd like that,


He will undoubtedly argue that his actions were purely defensive, but I doubt that he'll be able to sell that argument. I do think he will be able to plea down to a charge that is less serious than attempted murder. I don't know exactly what they'll get down to. If he can afford a good lawyer, he'll get off pretty easy.

 

[uke2se]

I'm sure the Nazi dude at Charlottesville will be convicted and sentenced as well, but the point is that there is videotape of exactly what he did, and it did not include firing a gun at anyone, and the person he was threatening with his gun was in fact himself threatening people with a weapon at the time. 332nd characterized the initial pointing at Mr. Long as a "misfire" but I don't think that's accurate. His actions included firing a warning shot into the ground at someone's feet. That's still generally considered a crime. We generally don't want people discharging weapons in a crowd like that,


He will undoubtedly argue that his actions were purely defensive, but I doubt that he'll be able to sell that argument. I do think he will be able to plea down to a charge that is less serious than attempted murder. I don't know exactly what they'll get down to. If he can afford a good lawyer, he'll get off pretty easy.

Do you think he should get off pretty easy?

 

[Meadmaker]

He wasn't trying to set anyone on fire. In order to do that, you need to hold the can of aerosol quite a bit closer than 10 feet. He also wasn't trying to put anything else on fire.

That is, unless you Think it's illegal to light the spray from an aerosol can on fire.

It certainly is not illegal to light the spray from an aerosol can on fire.

It also isn't illegal to fire a pistol.

The circumstances, however, can make it criminal. I think you would find that if you performed the experiment Emily's Cat suggested, you would find yourself in a jail cell.

And if, in the course of performing that experiment, someone threatened you with a gun, or even fired a warning shot in your direction, I doubt they would be in a jail cell next to yours.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you think he should get off pretty easy?

That's a very difficult question to answer, seriously.

I think that both of the "principals" in that video were behaving badly. I think both should be arrested.

When mob violence is going on, singling out specific individuals for arrest is very hard. There was so much going on that day which, removed from the context of a neo-Nazi rally, would have been criminal, but you can't arrest a mob.

I think he probably ought to be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, for threatening the man with a gun.

 

[uke2se]

It certainly is not illegal to light the spray from an aerosol can on fire.

It also isn't illegal to fire a pistol.

The circumstances, however, can make it criminal. I think you would find that if you performed the experiment Emily's Cat suggested, you would find yourself in a jail cell.

Is that a specific regulation concerning aerosol canisters? Because it doesn't apply to, say, people who perform spraying fire and so on. Could you show me the law you are referring to?

And if, in the course of performing that experiment, someone threatened you with a gun, or even fired a warning shot in your direction, I doubt they would be in a jail cell next to yours.

Because they would get off scott free, having threatened me with a gun? Could you please show me the relevant law here as well, because this sounds a lot like BS.

 

[uke2se]

I think he probably ought to be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, for threatening the man with a gun.

That was all that was needed. The rest is simply BS false equivalencies.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

He wasn't trying to set anyone on fire. In order to do that, you need to hold the can of aerosol quite a bit closer than 10 feet. He also wasn't trying to put anything else on fire.

That is, unless you Think it's illegal to light the spray from an aerosol can on fire.




Imagining it's a crime, you mean.

In the same way that it is not illegal to discharge a round from a gun.

Context matters.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[applecorped]

BS false equivalencies.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

If a group of bigots march to advocate their disgusting view that some of their fellow human beings are inferior scum then of course some of those "inferior scum" (and even a few decent people of the same ethnicity as the bigots) are going to turn up to disagree with them. If violence results, who do you blame?

The ones who initiated violence.

Why is that so hard a conclusion to arrive at?

When I was younger I was sure that freedom of speech was an absolute right, but then I read about how American civil rights groups were arguing in favour of allowing Nazis to stage a march which would take them pass the homes of concentration camp survivors, and I realised that sometimes different rights conflict. Yes, Nazis have the right to freedom of speech, but concentration camp survivors have the right to live the rest of their lives free from fear and intimidation. Both rights cannot be granted, society has to choose whose right is going to be given priority. I know what my choice would be.

I absolutely think the purpose of a permitted activity should consider the feelings and concerns of residents in the area the permit allows. That's why street festivals have noise limits after certain times (I've had my hand on the master volume fader during an encore while scanning for official looking types holding a decibel meter on many a night).

But then that's also the same legal vehicle we rail against that puts convention protesters in a parking lot 3 miles from the politicians they want to address.

My problem is its hard to take the moral appeals seriously when they are so selective.

My primary concern remains how do you structure censorship in a way that doesn't bite us all in the ass.

So it keeps coming back to: who is your nominee for Censor? To a greater extent, what process will guide the appointment of the Censor. Presidential nomination, Senate confirmation seems the most likely route. Comfortable with that just now, anyone?

 

[ponderingturtle]

It certainly is not illegal to light the spray from an aerosol can on fire.

It also isn't illegal to fire a pistol.

It often is illegal to fire a pistol though in city limits for example. Toward people. But he was white so it is much more legal than owning a gun while black.

Just shows the difference between how police act around black kids with toy guns vs nazi's firing at blacks both in public parks. Shows who the police view as allies vs enemies.

 

[uke2se]

In the same way that it is not illegal to discharge a round from a gun.

Context matters.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

The difference being that nobody sprayed fire on anyone, but someone did fire a gun at someone.

 

[uke2se]

The ones who initiated violence.

Why is that so hard a conclusion to arrive at?



I absolutely think the purpose of a permitted activity should consider the feelings and concerns of residents in the area the permit allows. That's why street festivals have noise limits after certain times (I've had my hand on the master volume fader during an encore while scanning for official looking types holding a decibel meter on many a night).

But then that's also the same legal vehicle we rail against that puts convention protesters in a parking lot 3 miles from the politicians they want to address.

My problem is its hard to take the moral appeals seriously when they are so selective.

My primary concern remains how do you structure censorship in a way that doesn't bite us all in the ass.
So it keeps coming back to: who is your nominee for Censor? To a greater extent, what process will guide the appointment of the Censor. Presidential nomination, Senate confirmation seems the most likely route. Comfortable with that just now, anyone?

On a case by case basis, acknowledging that rights often stand against each other.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It often is illegal to fire a pistol though in city limits for example. Toward people. But he was white so it is much more legal than owning a gun while black.

Just shows the difference between how police act around black kids with toy guns vs nazi's firing at blacks both in public parks. Shows who the police view as allies vs enemies.

You immediately brought context into your examples.

My point stands.

The difference being that nobody sprayed fire on anyone, but someone did fire a gun at someone.

"On", "at", and maybe even "in the direction of". Oh look, context.

Again, all I'm refuting is that you can't rest a determination on whether an object is being used for harm or threat of harm just by what kind of object it is.

On a case by case basis, acknowledging that rights often stand against each other.

Ok, still uselessly vague.

Who decides the resolution of these cases/challenges/petitions?

 

[Pixel42]

The ones who initiated violence.

So provocation is never a factor? Even when it's the worst imaginable hate speech, and the person at whom it is directed has every reason to believe the speaker intends to follow through?

My primary concern remains how do you structure censorship in a way that doesn't bite us all in the ass.

So it keeps coming back to: who is your nominee for Censor? To a greater extent, what process will guide the appointment of the Censor. Presidential nomination, Senate confirmation seems the most likely route. Comfortable with that just now, anyone?

In the UK proposed legislation is part of party manifestos, so we get the chance to vote on proposals concerning which rights should take priority where they conflict. Having said that it's impossible to legislate for every possible such conflict, so the judiciary have a role to play. Our judges are not appointed by politicians.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

So provocation is never a factor? Even when it's the worst imaginable hate speech, and the person at whom it is directed has every reason to believe the speaker intends to follow through?

They are free to make an affirmative defense. I recognize that our civil institutions don't accept those appeals in a manner that appears fair. Which is why I think fixing systemic bias/institutional discrimination should be addressed rather than further empowering already corrupt institutions or erecting a new one to be similarly co-opted.

In the UK proposed legislation is part of party manifestos, so we get the chance to vote on proposals concerning which rights should take priority where they conflict. Having said that it's impossible to legislate for every possible such conflict, so the judiciary have a role to play. Our judges are not appointed by politicians.

The process seems to have about as much transparency as the collegiate bowl system in NCAA football.

 

[Meadmaker]

They are free to make an affirmative defense. I recognize that our civil institutions don't accept those appeals in a manner that appears fair. Which is why I think fixing systemic bias/institutional discrimination should be addressed rather than further empowering already corrupt institutions or erecting a new one to be similarly co-opted.

If only everyone had the reading comprehension skills to grasp what Delphic Oracle is saying.


Unfortunately, a lot of people can't get past "Our side good. Their side baaaad." And a lot of politicians pander to those people.

 

[Belz...]

Personally, I think that it seems the least bad system of government that has been tried in human history.

Depends on what you value, of course.

 

[uke2se]

My point stands."On", "at", and maybe even "in the direction of". Oh look, context.

Again, all I'm refuting is that you can't rest a determination on whether an object is being used for harm or threat of harm just by what kind of object it is.Ok, still uselessly vague.

We can absolutely determine that a pistol fired in the direction of someone else (people say the Nazi aimed at the ground, but I don't see that in the video, just that he's aiming in the general direction of the counter protesters) is a crime. We cannot determine that spraying fire from an aerosol can in the approximate viscinity (within, say, 10-15 feet) of other people is a crime.

Who decides the resolution of these cases/challenges/petitions?

I don't know. But, just because I can't tell you doesn't change the fact that sometimes rights go against each other and we must acknowledge that fact. Being "absolutist" when it comes to free speech doesn't work.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

We can absolutely determine that a pistol fired in the direction of someone else (people say the Nazi aimed at the ground, but I don't see that in the video, just that he's aiming in the general direction of the counter protesters) is a crime. We cannot determine that spraying fire from an aerosol can in the approximate viscinity (within, say, 10-15 feet) of other people is a crime.

Which is to say, context matters.

Would you like to set those goalposts down, now?

I don't know. But, just because I can't tell you doesn't change the fact that sometimes right go against each other and we must acknowledge that fact. Being "absolutist" when it comes to free speech doesn't work.

I'm not being absolutist, I want to know the process before I can assent or dissent.

Nobody wants to get into the sausage-making part of the discussion.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[uke2se]

Which is to say, context matters.

Would you like to set those goalposts down, now?

I never moved them.

I'm not being absolutist, I want to know the process before I can assent or dissent.

Nobody wants to get into the sausage-making part of the discussion.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

I'm not intelligent enough to give you an answer to the question you pose. Our civilization has been around for a long time, and we haven't solved this issue yet, so I'm fairly sure not a lot of people are intelligent enough to solve it. All I am asking is that we acknowledge the fact that free speech cannot be an absolute right, because sometimes that right would infringe upon other rights, including other people's right to free speech.