Is the 1st Amendment killing Americans?



America’s enemies are within borders.

2009 has been an odd year for this great country: threats to its President (simply because of his complexion); attacks against Jews (being the most notorious case the shooting at the Holocaust Museum, in Washington); terrorist plots to attack several buildings across America; and, most recently, the shooting at Fort Hood.

What do the authors of these threats, plots, attacks and shootings have in common (prior to committing their crimes)? They are all radicals (be it nationalists or fundamentalists). They all express their ideologies of hate through the verb and/or the Internet. They were/are all being observed and followed by security forces. They are all protected by the 1st amendment and thus pre-emptive measures are out of the question. Innocent people get killed.

I watched, this past weekend, the TV show AC 360º (that I had previously recorded) where an American citizen (a convert to Islam), in the middle of New York, was spitting words of fire and hate against Americans, against the President; claiming that those who do not turn to Islam should die; and that Allah commands all Muslims to terrorise infidels (as a means to fear Him). This individual (accompanied by his Jewish-Israeli-recently-converted-to-Islam friend) recruits, in front of a mosque, and incites other Muslims to violence against Americans, on American soil. Until they actually kill somebody or set a plan forward to kill people, the police can’t act for their speech is protected. They may not act but others, inspired by them, might. (N.B: these irresponsible radicals do not give a jot about the repercussions of their actions upon moderate Muslims).

Major Nidal Malik Hasan (an American citizen) used to express hatred against America (he even had a blog for this purpose). This caused him to be under surveillance for once again his logorrhoea was protected. Last Thursday he shot his fellow soldiers, his brothers in arms; causing 13 people to die and 38 to be wounded.
His cousin (in Ramallah) said that he was made fun of for being a Muslim (note: the man is a psychiatrist, for heaven’s sake...can he say “sublimation”? And if we are going to talk about humiliation and having been made fun of in the military, let’s recall what happened when the first black soldiers joined the forces...yet, none of them shot their comrades); that he wanted out of the military but wasn’t allowed (note: if the military invests in your education, you must return that investment – everybody knows this) and some other explanations based on victimisation.
There are no coincidences. This event occurred after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Israel for its unprecedented steps for peace. Major Hasan’s family seems to be Palestinian – now, whenever the Israeli-Palestinian issue is raised, do these Palestinian-descendant-American citizens feel more Palestinian or American? That is the question.

Then we have Mr. James W. von Brunn, a white supremacist, who authored an anti-Semitic web site where he vomited all his hatred – his mental diarrhoea was also protected and under surveillance.
But since he never mentioned his intentions on his site, the police never saw him coming. On the 10th of June 2009, Mr. White Supremacist walked in the Holocaust Museum and began shooting the place up hoping t exterminate some Juden but the only person he murdered was a goy (Mr. Stephen Tyrone Johns, 40), a brave security guard.
This racist trash keeps society with Patriots and Neo-Nazis. He’s well known by security forces yet they could do nothing before an innocent person got killed.

Europe loves its freedom of speech (after all it did have the inquisition, fascism and communism) nevertheless the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms foresees a limitation of that freedom “in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

So, what do you think: is the 1st amendment killing Americans?


Image: Burning of the Heretics (Auto da fé) by Pedro Berruguete

Comments

  1. i dont know much about 1st amendment of america, but hatred should be stopped before it takes lives of innocent people!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I absolutely do not think that freedom of speech is killing Americans. It would be the revocation of that right that would be most detrimental. This present administration has tried to curtail freedom of speech. They want to silence radio talk show hosts who disagree with their policies. Pres. Obama tried to institute the "fairness in broadcasting" act that would force talk radio to present both sides of an issue. That isn't freedom of speech. Radio host Michael Savage has been banned from Britain, not because of any act, but because of his words. I listen to him quite regularly and I don't find any cause to ban him from Britain. He speaks his mind, and let's Americans decide for themselves.
    I lived in China where there is no free speech. I personally know a man whose sister was put to death by the government because she wrote a college paper that criticized the government. I dont' think her criticisms were anything too terrible, but this was during a dark period in China's history. She was put to death, basically, for "thought crimes". And the government of China forced her mother to pay for the bullet they used to kill her.
    Why do you think freedom of speech is the first ammendment? It is first because it is most important of all. God forbid that there should be limits placed on our freedom of speech!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Max:

    I am a patriot and a veteran. I have always loved my country. But I find myself becoming more and more cynical with each passing day. I never thought I'd say this, but I think I would actually move abroad if I didn't have so many responsibilities here. Shameful.

    One of the main reasons I feel this way is because of the political correctness that pervades our society. I remember when I was working we were sent to a sexual harassment seminar. When someone asked what exactly constituted sexual harassment, the middle-aged female instructor said, "Breath!." Now really. It may have been flippant on her part, but I tell you, all of this idiocy is growing into a malignant cancer that eats everything we love and hold dear. And, sadly, there's no way to stop it. Maybe the secret cure to political correctness was hidden high up in the canopy of the Amazon rain forest, but those trees have long been chopped down, or burned beyond recovery. So the deadly disease continues to spread. We see it everywhere. As you pointed out, people stand on the corner and scream their hatred of Americans. But Americans just turn a deaf ear. We are all so afraid that if we say anything, we'll be branded as racist. You can find a good example of this in the recent shooting at Fort Hood. Witness said the the shooter, a Muslim, had said things and acted in a way that was alarming, but they didn't come forward for fear of being accused of racism. So people died. Incredible. Even our illustrious president told our nation not to be judgmental. Like we're children and he's the father, and we're all too stupid to understand that the acts of one aren't necessarily the acts of the many. Meanwhile, the true racist are allowed to roam throughout our society with complete impunity. You have to wonder what's wrong with this picture? And, you have to wonder about the First Amendment. It is a cure or is it the disease?

    So yes, to answer your question, I do believe that the First Amendment is killing Americans---more than if a thousand hydrogen bombs had been dropped right over the land of the free and the home of the brave. Only the home of the brave is becoming the home of the criticized, the disdained and the hated. It saddens me.

    I love freedom, and I cherish the First Amendment, but like Janice Joplin used to sing in her song from the 1960's, "Freedom is just another thing to loose." At the time I didn't really understand those lyrics, but evidently, she was right. Freedom is just another thing to loose, and I believe we are losing it, bit by it, day by day, year by year.

    Max, just my two cents.

    Happy trails.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Shooting Star :D!

    Welcome to the MAX!

    "I dont know much about 1st amendment of america, but hatred should be stopped before it takes lives of innocent people!!"

    I hear you!

    Star, thank you so much for having shared your opinion (know that you are extremely welcome here) :D!

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey D!

    :D

    "I lived in China where there is no free speech. I personally know a man whose sister was put to death by the government because she wrote a college paper that criticized the government. I dont' think her criticisms were anything too terrible, but this was during a dark period in China's history. She was put to death, basically, for "thought crimes". And the government of China forced her mother to pay for the bullet they used to kill her."

    China is notorious. But of course, this case can not be compared to what is happening in America. Americans (and Europeans) are free to disagree with the government, and whomever they see fit; but the question is when a speech incites to violence, to hatred, which could result in murder - isn't the author of that speech a murderer by proxy? Isn't he/she a criminal?

    D, excellent comment: thanks for having shared your opinion :D!

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Swu :D!

    "I am a patriot and a veteran. I have always loved my country. But I find myself becoming more and more cynical with each passing day. I never thought I'd say this, but I think I would actually move abroad if I didn't have so many responsibilities here. Shameful."

    I feel your pain, man...

    "One of the main reasons I feel this way is because of the political correctness that pervades our society."

    PC makes my stomach sick...*nodding*. It is out of control...

    "I remember when I was working we were sent to a sexual harassment seminar. When someone asked what exactly constituted sexual harassment, the middle-aged female instructor said, "Breath!." Now really. It may have been flippant on her part, but I tell you, all of this idiocy is growing into a malignant cancer that eats everything we love and hold dear."

    I totally hear you!

    "We are all so afraid that if we say anything, we'll be branded as racist. You can find a good example of this in the recent shooting at Fort Hood. Witness said the the shooter, a Muslim, had said things and acted in a way that was alarming, but they didn't come forward for fear of being accused of racism. So people died. Incredible."

    So I heard, and so I was perplexed - it is as if, in the name of PC innocent people go killed (what is worse, men and women who protect America [and the world, let's be fair] were murdered because of fear of being labelled as racist - shocking).

    "And, you have to wonder about the First Amendment. It is a cure or is it the disease?"

    Excellent question! Do you think that one day America will be forced to review it?

    "So yes, to answer your question, I do believe that the First Amendment is killing Americans---more than if a thousand hydrogen bombs had been dropped right over the land of the free and the home of the brave. Only the home of the brave is becoming the home of the criticized, the disdained and the hated. It saddens me."

    Thank you for sharing your personal views on this, man...I appreciate it *bowing*.

    "I love freedom, and I cherish the First Amendment, but like Janice Joplin used to sing in her song from the 1960's, "Freedom is just another thing to loose." At the time I didn't really understand those lyrics, but evidently, she was right. Freedom is just another thing to loose, and I believe we are losing it, bit by it, day by day, year by year."

    Janice was definitely right. *nodding in utter agreement*....

    "Max, just my two cents."

    Precious two cents...

    Swu, outstanding comment (*applauding*): thank you so much, really! :D

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow! An amazing discussion already.

    I too agree that this is an issue of PC, not free speech. Yes, you can spew anti-American hate speech through any forum you like, but that does not give anyone a right to be trained and employed as an American soldier. The sad part is that there is no way to put a filter in without the PC crowd lurching the opposite direction and banning all kinds of people from employment as every thing they disagree with is labeled "hate speech".

    ReplyDelete
  8. hmmm...maybe freedom of speech is taken to liberally in its own context....on a serious note, I believe more than the freedom of speech...its the radicalism, fundamentalism and orthodox views that are hurting the most....today the more we talk about the world coming closer and staying in a global village, the more we see that even within countries among the same culture, religion or diaspora, there is a growing tendency to break up for narrow interests...somewhere Unity is becoming a vague word today...peoples perspectives are narrowing down and somewhere their mind are easily getting mis-guided by these orthodox views, who loves to live in the past and not reckon about the future....!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ciao Max,

    1st Amendment, P.C, appeasement and oil are diverting security forces' main focus: people's security.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Max,

    The 1st Amendment may be perceived as a right that can get people hurt because it is a grey area. It is so that, on CNN show AC 360º, Mr. Jeffrey Toobin explained the dualism of the 1st Amendment; for instance: it's legal to say death to the Jews but illegal to say death to a specific individual; it's legal to say it's time for Jihad but illegal to say it's time to kill the president.

    So, if a weak-spirited person goes out and targets Jewish people; who's responsible for the killing?

    Max, we think that 1st amendment is a harbour which is very handy to hate and crime peddlers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Max,

    This reminds me of the film, "Sleeping WIth The Enemy." We don't know who to trust anymore. Just when we think that we have made progress in race relations and cultural divides, something like this happens that fires the salvo in the battle between war and peace.

    Last year we had the Mumbai attacks and the world was once again reminded that anything can happen at any time in any place. The Fort Hood shooting, like so many other heinous acts has caused us to be on heightened alert, emotionally, politically, and spiritually.

    Many people feel that if someone commits a crime, then they should forfeit all rights. Rights are for people who follow the law, not for those who break it or hide behind any of the amendments.

    It seems as if Major Nidal Malik Hasan planned the attack. There are several stories that contradict others; i.e., he counseled soldiers before going to war, he counseled them after returning from war, he was in contact with Al-Qaeda, etc. We don't know what was in his head and we may never know. All we know is that he committed this atrocious act.

    "...do these Palestinian-descendant-American citizens feel more Palestinian or American? That is the question."

    Very interesting question. I wonder? For example, can a tiger change his stripes? Even if he is defanged, he still has a killer instinct.

    The 1st amendment is killing us all. Until we amend all of the amendments, we will continue to suffer under the tyranny of semantics.

    Excellent post my dear friend. High marks!!!!!!

    Peace Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Looney :D!

    "I too agree that this is an issue of PC, not free speech."

    I think it is a bit of both. In the case of Fort Hood it is definitely a mix of both. But in the case of white supremacists and Islamist expressing their hatred it is a case of free speech, and their verbal vomit being protected by the 1st Amendment (a vomit that many times ends up in tragedy).
    Did you know that Islamists are leaving Europe to go to the US and incite attacks to European targets from the US, simply because they know their logorrhoea is protected there?

    "Yes, you can spew anti-American hate speech through any forum you like, but that does not give anyone a right to be trained and employed as an American soldier."

    I know what you mean...

    "The sad part is that there is no way to put a filter in without the PC crowd lurching the opposite direction and banning all kinds of people from employment as every thing they disagree with is labeled "hate speech"."

    You are right...
    PC is becoming a liability.

    Looney, thank you so much for havinh shared your thoughts with us; I loved it :D!

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey Kalyan :D!

    "hmmm...maybe freedom of speech is taken to liberally in its own context....on a serious note, I believe more than the freedom of speech...its the radicalism, fundamentalism and orthodox views that are hurting the most...."

    You know?

    "today the more we talk about the world coming closer and staying in a global village, the more we see that even within countries among the same culture, religion or diaspora, there is a growing tendency to break up for narrow interests...somewhere Unity is becoming a vague word today...peoples perspectives are narrowing down and somewhere their mind are easily getting mis-guided by these orthodox views, who loves to live in the past and not reckon about the future....!"

    Excellently put!

    Kalyan, as always, your input was superb: thank you! :D

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ciao Dux :D!

    "1st Amendment, P.C, appeasement and oil are diverting security forces' main focus: people's security."

    You know it!

    Dux, thank you ever so much for your input :D!

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Circulus Ciceronis :D!

    "The 1st Amendment may be perceived as a right that can get people hurt because it is a grey area. It is so that, on CNN show AC 360º, Mr. Jeffrey Toobin explained the dualism of the 1st Amendment; for instance: it's legal to say death to the Jews but illegal to say death to a specific individual; it's legal to say it's time for Jihad but illegal to say it's time to kill the president."

    It is a shocking dualism *nodding*...do you think this amendment should be reviewed?

    "So, if a weak-spirited person goes out and targets Jewish people; who's responsible for the killing?"

    I'd say both the weak-spirited and the person who incited him/her.

    "Max, we think that 1st amendment is a harbour which is very handy to hate and crime peddlers."

    Hear, Hear!

    C.C, thank you so so much for this outstanding comment :D!

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Lady A :D!

    "This reminds me of the film, "Sleeping WIth The Enemy." We don't know who to trust anymore. Just when we think that we have made progress in race relations and cultural divides, something like this happens that fires the salvo in the battle between war and peace."

    I loved that movie (it's so damn intense: I just felt like kicking that guy's butt). You are so right on that one! *nodding in utter agreement*...

    "Last year we had the Mumbai attacks and the world was once again reminded that anything can happen at any time in any place. The Fort Hood shooting, like so many other heinous acts has caused us to be on heightened alert, emotionally, politically, and spiritually."

    Those attacks were terrible!! It broke my heart. Absolutely: this type of attacks brings out fear in people, which in turn raise suspicion, discomfort, dislike, and in the worst scenario...xenophobia (many times towards the moderate and innocent people).

    "Many people feel that if someone commits a crime, then they should forfeit all rights. Rights are for people who follow the law, not for those who break it or hide behind any of the amendments."

    It is a thought...

    "It seems as if Major Nidal Malik Hasan planned the attack. There are several stories that contradict others; i.e., he counseled soldiers before going to war, he counseled them after returning from war, he was in contact with Al-Qaeda, etc. We don't know what was in his head and we may never know. All we know is that he committed this atrocious act."

    He did plan it; but we do not know whether he did it alone or not; if he acted under the influence of the Iman that fled to Yemen (another American citizen) or not...we know nothing. Like you said; the only thing we know is he murdered people.

    "Very interesting question. I wonder? For example, can a tiger change his stripes? Even if he is defanged, he still has a killer instinct."

    No, a tiger doesn't change his stripes (and let's leave it at that).

    "The 1st amendment is killing us all. Until we amend all of the amendments, we will continue to suffer under the tyranny of semantics."

    I completely see what you mean...

    "Excellent post my dear friend. High marks!!!!!!"

    Thank you so much, darling *bowing*!

    Lady A, thanks a million for having shared your opinion on this (loved it) :D!

    Long lasting Peace Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey Max! Everything's great here, the sun is finally out and hopefully, no more storms to come. Thanks for visiting sweetie. I wish you a fantastic weekend too.

    *hugs*

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey Liza :D!

    Those are definitely good news *hug*! It was about time, eh?

    Thanks for having dropped by and have yourself a good week too :D!

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  19. Max,

    "Did you know that Islamists are leaving Europe to go to the US and incite attacks to European targets from the US, simply because they know their logorrhoea is protected there?"

    You may be right on this.

    It does seem to me that there may be other factors. The constitution (4th amendment) has a prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure for which an expansive reading has largely precluded a war on drugs. A more reasonable stance was taken for the purpose of terrorism, but it is still much harder to stop a crime at the planning stage here.

    I also have a sense that our notions of multiculturalism are different from Europe's, but this is hard to quantify. For example, it seems that French multiculturalism still emphasizes assimilating people into a French world view, while American multiculturalism emphasizes anything but an American world view. I presume you have a clearer perspective on such things?

    ReplyDelete
  20. America's enemies are within our borders as well, and as such, are our enermies also.

    Like the USA, we too have a kaleidoscope of different people from all around the world. This has given us such a wide cultural diversity you might as well call this country, the United Nations.

    There are many reasons they move here; jobs, escaping their own countries violent ways, joining other family members, the ability to protest peacefully without retribution, to speak their minds without fear of a death sentence, and who can blame them.

    Unfortunately this freedom, allows some to carry on what they left behind in their own country. They see this country as another military outpost to carry out their deadly acts, recruit simple minds and to spread the word of hate for those that have welcomed them.

    As far as I am concerned these rotten apples should go home.

    Is the 1st amendment killing Americans? No! The ones killing Americans are those that hide behind and take advantage of the first amendment for their own selfish and depraved ways.

    Take Care,
    Peter

    ReplyDelete
  21. Max, another excellent post, in which you have tied events together and made meaningful commentary.

    I comment you again for your incisive thought and willingness to communicate it, my dear.

    I agree with you, that in cases of repeated expression of hatred, bigotry, threats, or what could be interpreted as threats, perpetrators should be warned.

    Then if they continue with speech or actions that foment hatred, they should be given penalties or jailed.

    I emphasize the word "repeat." No one should be prosecuted for expressing an opinion. But it's different in the case of those who make a pattern of expressing incendiary, clearly biased and hateful propaganda.

    I agree with you, Max, that we have gone too far in protecting freedom of speech. There's a line at which too much freedom of speech becomes a tool of destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Max, Sorry I'm so slow in responding to this. You asked if someone would be a murderer by proxy if someone were killed because of their hateful speeches. If that person were telling people to kill, that would be one thing. But in the case I mentioned where the government wants to silence talk radio, these people aren't really inciting people to violence. But the government of the US, and the government of Britain are treating them as if they are, and as if they have actually committed a crime. I don't see people in the media asking people to kill or harm others. That isn't why the government wants to silence them. They want to silence them because they don't want the American people to disagree with the present administration's policies. If they can silence talk radio, they can control what the people hear and thereby believe.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey Looney,

    "A more reasonable stance was taken for the purpose of terrorism, but it is still much harder to stop a crime at the planning stage here."

    I believe it is a question of reviewing the law perhaps.
    Take the U.K: after the terror attacks of 2005 (known as 7/7) a new bill was created "The Terrorism Act 2006" (it gives power to authorities to take pre-emptive measures; let me offer an example: "Encouragement of terrorism (section 1): Prohibits the publishing of "a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences." Indirect encouragement statements include every statement which glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.". The maximum penalty is seven years' imprisonment.")

    For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006#Part_1

    I understand, though, this Act might be considered controversial for it may be viewed as a decrease in freedoms and liberties, but we need to ask ourselves if criminals should have the right to sever innocent lives (not soldiers, who know what they are up against when they join the military; but civilians) simply because there is a law that protects their incitement to crime (be it blatant or subtle).

    "I also have a sense that our notions of multiculturalism are different from Europe's, but this is hard to quantify. For example, it seems that French multiculturalism still emphasizes assimilating people into a French world view, while American multiculturalism emphasizes anything but an American world view. I presume you have a clearer perspective on such things?"

    France used to be pro-assimiliation indeed; but I think that today (since President Sarkozy) it is changing. Although they do defend their national identity (which is totally understandable for Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, The Netherlands etc do the same).
    I admire America's ability to welcome every culture (although the different cultures do not seem to melt together [I find it appalling that the US have neighbourhoods where English is not spoken, written or read...I heard a woman saying that she lives in America for 30 years and she still doesn't speak English - as if this were a reason to be proud]) but at what cost: losing its identity, its values? It shouldn't be like that...
    Diversity, yes (absolutely); losing national identity, NO.

    Looney, great discussion! :D

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi Peter :D!

    "America's enemies are within our borders as well, and as such, are our enermies also. "

    *nodding in agreement*....

    "Like the USA, we too have a kaleidoscope of different people from all around the world. This has given us such a wide cultural diversity you might as well call this country, the United Nations."

    LOL true. But hey, aren't most countries today like the United Nations?

    "There are many reasons they move here; jobs, escaping their own countries violent ways, joining other family members, the ability to protest peacefully without retribution, to speak their minds without fear of a death sentence, and who can blame them."

    Indeed...

    "Unfortunately this freedom, allows some to carry on what they left behind in their own country. They see this country as another military outpost to carry out their deadly acts, recruit simple minds and to spread the word of hate for those that have welcomed them."

    You know it!

    "As far as I am concerned these rotten apples should go home."

    I am totally with you on this one! When the UK started deporting rotten apples back home, there was an uproar...but it was right!

    "Is the 1st amendment killing Americans? No! The ones killing Americans are those that hide behind and take advantage of the first amendment for their own selfish and depraved ways."

    Thank you for sharing your opinion :D!

    Peter, awesome comment: thanks a million :D!

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey Lynda :D!

    "Max, another excellent post, in which you have tied events together and made meaningful commentary. I comment you again for your incisive thought and willingness to communicate it, my dear."

    Thank you so much, darling *bowing*!

    "I agree with you, that in cases of repeated expression of hatred, bigotry, threats, or what could be interpreted as threats, perpetrators should be warned. Then if they continue with speech or actions that foment hatred, they should be given penalties or jailed. "

    It is a good idea.

    "I emphasize the word "repeat." No one should be prosecuted for expressing an opinion. But it's different in the case of those who make a pattern of expressing incendiary, clearly biased and hateful propaganda."

    *nodding in utter agreement*...and you know that repetition is vital to incite hatred, bigotry, threats etc....

    "I agree with you, Max, that we have gone too far in protecting freedom of speech. There's a line at which too much freedom of speech becomes a tool of destruction."

    Indeed...

    Lynda, thank you ever so much for sharing your thoughts with us: loved it :D!

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi D,

    "Max, Sorry I'm so slow in responding to this."

    It's ok, darling!

    "But in the case I mentioned where the government wants to silence talk radio, these people aren't really inciting people to violence."

    I understand what you mean; but let me share a small example:
    Hitler dreamed to be an artist; and therefore he contacted a Jewish art-merchant so that he could trade Hitler's paintings. They agreed to meet at the end of a certain day (which fell on a Jewish Holiday). Meanwhile, he spoke his mind about the Jews on small town-halls (how much power they had, how rich they were etc etc, and how the government allowed this to happen when the German people was suffering etc etc), which was his right (right?). However, he kept repeating this rhetoric over and over again (by this time he never said "kill the Jews!), and he stirred emotions.
    The date to meet the Jewish art-merchant came; and when the merchant left the synagogue to meet Hitler (even though his father had begged him not to) a group of young men (inspired by Adolph's speech) seized the man and beat him up to death. Hitler, meanwhile, waited and waited and waited for the merchant; and when he didn't show up Hitler decided that the Jew was despising him and thus began his personal war against the "Juden".

    Even the Jewish people at the time did not consider Adolph's speech one that incited violence - yet it did (because it stirred emotions).

    "But the government of the US, and the government of Britain are treating them as if they are, and as if they have actually committed a crime."

    Mr. White Supremacist (James Von Brunn) said, in his site, that he felt inspired by Rush Limbaugh's words...yet, it is said that Mr. Limbaugh never asked anyone to kill such and such (nevertheless, his racist logorrhoea stirs emotions which lead to crime).

    There are several ways to incite to violence. And the U.K. knows this very well (that is why the Terrorist Act 2006 was created).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers