Today's Mass Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
plague311 said:
I don't agree.
Click to expand...

With which part? That the clear and present danger test shouldn't be used, or that Alex Jones' speech does not present a clear and present danger?


If the former, I still think there needs to be some specific criteria that must be followed in determining who can be censored. Otherwise, it becomes the government saying, "Trust us. We'll only censor the bad ones." That is a recipe for disaster.

If the latter, we have to look at the possible consequences of Alex Jones' speech. The possible consequences are that the hateful rhetoric might incite someone to do something bad someday. The "something" tells us that the danger is not clear, and the "someday" tells us that the danger is not present. "Clear and present danger" was not originally some sort of stock phrase that sounds good in a movie title. It is a phrase that contains two adjectives with specific definitions, and neither of those adjectives describe the threat allegedly posed by Alex Jones' speech.
 
Relating this more specifically to the topic at hand, I just don't see how it relates. Alex Jones said awful things, but that was after the mass shooting, didn't apparently incite any other shootings, and didn't specifically call for any shootings.

After the El Paso attack, a lot of people noted that there have been lots of bad things said about immigrants in general, and illegal immigrants in particular, but it's not easy to see how to connect the dots between some sort of political position and some lunatic deciding to shoot up a WalMart. Yes, sure, there may be some connection. It's not hard to imagine that this fool decided, fueled by rhetoric from Trump and/or right wing haters, decided that the law just wasn't doing enough, and he would take it upon himself to protect the American Way of Life, but it's not exactly a straight line from rhetoric to massacre. It has to take a few twists and turns through a lunatic brain first.

It's like the baseball attack. An awful lot of people have said Trump supporters and/or Republicans are despicable, nasty, people who are comparable to Nazis and goodness knows what else, and a few have even publicly wished for their deaths, but only one guy decided it was his duty to take them out while they were at the baseball practice. I don't think we can charge all the people who said all the hateful things, nor would I wish the prosecutors had the power to prosecute future speakers of hateful things in order to prevent future attacks, which may or may not happen at some yet to be determined place.
 
North Carolina student was planning mass shooting at university, police say

Police arrested a North Carolina university student who admitted to planning a mass shooting at his school, authorities said Wednesday.

Officers charged Paul Steber, a 19-year-old freshman at High Point University in North Carolina, with two felony counts of having a gun on campus and an additional count for making threats of mass violence on Tuesday after a classmate reported him, police said.
Click to expand...
 
Baylor said:
That's the one champ!

Mexicanians and their NRA and second amendment! That's why their murder rate is 25 per 100,000. Don't they know it's the current year!?!
Click to expand...
I'm wondering what the NRA and the Second Amendment have to do with a gang-related arson attack in Mexico.
 
Meadmaker said:
With which part? That the clear and present danger test shouldn't be used, or that Alex Jones' speech does not present a clear and present danger?
Click to expand...

Yes

Meadmaker said:
If the former, I still think there needs to be some specific criteria that must be followed in determining who can be censored. Otherwise, it becomes the government saying, "Trust us. We'll only censor the bad ones." That is a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...

You mean like the SCOTUS has done in literally every first amendment case brought before them for the entire history of our country? Seems to have worked pretty well so far. I get ya though, scary government boogeyman and all.

Meadmaker said:
If the latter, we have to look at the possible consequences of Alex Jones' speech. The possible consequences are that the hateful rhetoric might incite someone to do something bad someday. The "something" tells us that the danger is not clear, and the "someday" tells us that the danger is not present. "Clear and present danger" was not originally some sort of stock phrase that sounds good in a movie title. It is a phrase that contains two adjectives with specific definitions, and neither of those adjectives describe the threat allegedly posed by Alex Jones' speech.
Click to expand...

Now change the "something" to "shooting up a pizza parlor", and "causing death threats on the lives of the families of slaughtered children" and the "someday" to, "it's already happened in the past", and we seem to be getting somewhere.

ETA: We can also change the "someone" to "multiple individuals around the US"
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
When all the hyperbole is cleared out of the way, the problem still remains: who do you invest with the power to permanently gag citizens? How do you write the specific law? How do you enforce it? And how do you make sure that such laws are not open to abuse?
Click to expand...

That isn't what is being said. Folk are saying some further* types of speech should be made criminal, not that a person should be gagged permanently. The two things are very different.

*And remember some forms of speech are already not allowed in the USA or rather it is a considered crime if you make such speech so this is an extension of the process already in place so one would assume the same people would be involved, so your legislators, your police, prosecutors and the courts would continue to make the calls on what is criminal or not as they do today.

ETA: And what plague311 said!
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
That isn't what is being said. Folk are saying some further* types of speech should be made criminal, not that a person should be gagged permanently. The two things are very different.

*And remember some forms of speech are already not allowed in the USA or rather it is a considered crime if you make such speech so this is an extension of the process already in place so one would assume the same people would be involved, so your legislators, your police, prosecutors and the courts would continue to make the calls on what is criminal or not as they do today.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what arthwollipot said.

arthwollipot said:
I'd like to see him permanently gagged from broadcasting for the good of society and sanity. Him and a couple of others too. Not very many.
Click to expand...
 
angrysoba said:
That's exactly what arthwollipot said.
Click to expand...

I'm sure what arthwollipot means is permanently prevented from broadcasting the stuff that (arthwollipot believes) is dangerous that he is broadcasting now and in the past. If Alex Jones wanted to turn over a fresh leaf and decided to broadcast a series exploring the USA railway system I am sure arthwollipot does not think Jones should be prevented from doing so.
 
Darat said:
I'm sure what arthwollipot means is permanently prevented from broadcasting the stuff that (arthwollipot believes) is dangerous that he is broadcasting now and in the past. If Alex Jones wanted to turn over a fresh leaf and decided to broadcast a series exploring the USA railway system I am sure arthwollipot does not think Jones should be prevented from doing so.
Click to expand...

Why are you sure you know what he meant? That's not what he said.
 
Darat said:
I could of course be wrong but from following the conversation I don't think I am.

Only arthwollipot can tell us which of us is right.
Click to expand...

It looks clear he is talking about the person rather than any specific content.

ETA: Besides, it was the term "permanently gagged" that you took issue with and you told me that "not that a person should be gagged permanently".

In all our back and forths, arthwollipot never denied that my interpretation of what he says (the one you took issue with) was correct.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
It looks clear he is talking about the person rather than any specific content.

ETA: Besides, it was the term "permanently gagged" that you took issue with and you told me that "not that a person should be gagged permanently".

In all our back and forths, arthwollipot never denied that my interpretation of what he says (the one you took issue with) was correct.
Click to expand...

As I said only arthwollipot can tell us who is right and as I also said, I could of course be wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom