Is it the Same as Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theatre?

[Werewolf]

It is illegal (and just plain mean and stupid) to yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't one. It tends to get people killed.

Using that logic isn't Muslims Clerics teaching hate of jews and christianity and telling their followers it's ok to kill them the same thing?

Tony Blair in England is trying to outlaw that type of speech in England. Would it be going to far to do the same in the US? Does the 1st amendment apply to speech that incites violence in the name of religion?

[The Rabbi]

Obviously I am not too thrilled when some Muslim clergy incite their congregants to kill the Jews.  OTOH dictating what people can and cannot say in private organizations is not a good idea.  And there already is a category of inflammatory speech that is illegal.  So if I go into a mosque on Friday and yell "Mohammed was the son of a whore" and likewise I could be arrested.   Assuming I survived the encounter of course.

[roo_ster]

There have been "inciting a riot" type laws on the books for a long while.  I think one of the general requirements is that your incitement leads to violence right then, not two years later in a subway train.

[RevDisk]

Using that logic isn't Muslims Clerics teaching hate of jews and christianity and telling their followers it's ok to kill them the same thing?

Tony Blair in England is trying to outlaw that type of speech in England. Would it be going to far to do the same in the US? Does the 1st amendment apply to speech that incites violence in the name of religion?

As I recall, you said over on THR that murdering civilians pretty good idea also.   Do you believe that you should be arrested for loosely advocating murder?   Why or why not?   Aren't you doing the same thing?


Yes, it would be going too far to do the same in the US.  Yes, first amendment does cover hate speed, and it is protected.  

"I think religious group A should be wiped off the planet!" - Ok (legally speaking)
"I wish someone would wipe out political group B!" - Ok (legally speaking)
"I'm going to go kill person C, anyone gonna join me?" - Not ok (legally speaking)


If someone listens to a person saying the first or second statement, and a couple years down the road actually tries it...   Bit hard to blame the original speaker for the actions of other person.   Is it a good thing?  No.  But to crack down on political/religious speech like that,  puts us very down a very dark road.

[Guest]

It is illegal (and just plain mean and stupid) to yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't one. It tends to get people killed.

Using that logic isn't Muslims Clerics teaching hate of jews and christianity and telling their followers it's ok to kill them the same thing?

Tony Blair in England is trying to outlaw that type of speech in England. Would it be going to far to do the same in the US? Does the 1st amendment apply to speech that incites violence in the name of religion?

I disagree with the premise so the logic doesn't follow. It should not be "illegal" to yell "Fire!" in a theater. The rules for the theater should be determined by its owner. Anyone that breaks the rules has broken the contract and could be ejected. Since yelling fire can't be prevented, the ticket agreement should state the terms of liability if a panic ensues. "Not responsible for the results of patrons' bad behavior." Insurance would be helpful, too. Anyone injured could sue the yeller.

 The responsibility for any murder rests with the murderer, not anyone who earlier mentioned something to him about murder.

[Werewolf]

The responsibility for any murder rests with the murderer, not anyone who earlier mentioned something to him about murder.

So if a respected mentor tells a malleable student to go out and smash car windows and the student does it the mentor bears no responsibility at all?

[RevDisk]

So if a respected mentor tells a malleable student to go out and smash car windows and the student does it the mentor bears no responsibility at all?

It's known as being an "accessory" or whatnot.  Sometimes, yes they are given the same punishment as the person that did it.  Sometimes, not.

[griz]

Its already illegal to conspire with someone to plan a murder even if you are not the murderer. If you tell (or pay) someone to murder another, and you believe they will, then by law you just committed attempted murder. But to discuss the morality of a particular murder with someone, even as a religious leader, thats just not quite to the same level yet.

I guess its a matter of degree. If a cleric says all the infidels must die or if somebody say we should execute the families of known bombers, it might be distasteful but doesnt rise to the level of advocating murder. If a cleric says someone in my congregation should blow up the XYZ train this Saturday", he has crossed the line and is planning a murder.

[Guest]

The responsibility for any murder rests with the murderer, not anyone who earlier mentioned something to him about murder.

So if a respected mentor tells a malleable student to go out and smash car windows and the student does it the mentor bears no responsibility at all?

Yes, ideally. I prefer totally free speech that is neither fraudulent ("This pill will cure AIDS") nor falsely slanderous ("That man slept with Leni Riefenstahl"). These two types would incur debts of restitution to the victim.

[Werewolf]

Yes, ideally. I prefer totally free speech that is neither fraudulent ("This pill will cure AIDS") nor falsely slanderous ("That man slept with Leni Riefenstahl"). These two types would incur debts of restitution to the victim.

So then it should be OK for Al-Queda members who are US citizens to open suicide bomber training camps in down town - insert favorite US city here - and teach Al-Queda freedom fighters how to blow up stuff in the US - afterall the trainers bear no responsibility for the acts of the students?

Don't rights come with responsibility? And responsibility without accountability isn't responsibility at all - is it?

[Guest]

Yes, ideally. I prefer totally free speech that is neither fraudulent ("This pill will cure AIDS") nor falsely slanderous ("That man slept with Leni Riefenstahl"). These two types would incur debts of restitution to the victim.

So then it should be OK for Al-Queda members who are US citizens to open suicide bomber training camps in down town - insert favorite US city here - and teach Al-Queda freedom fighters how to blow up stuff in the US - afterall the trainers bear no responsibility for the acts of the students?

Don't rights come with responsibility? And responsibility without accountability isn't responsibility at all - is it?

There are already training camps all across the US that train young, malleable men to "blow up stuff". Tim McVeigh attended one.

Edit: That decision came just moments after the Senate voted 98-0 to make sure that the Boy Scouts of America will be able to continue holding camping events on U.S. military bases.

 While the trainers bear no direct responsibility for the acts of the students, if the trainers advocate a policy of murdering innocent/peaceful people, I (or others) could justly kill the trainers. It would be logical to assume that anyone that advocates murder wouldn't mind being killed. This would only be true if the persons they wanted killed were truly innocent/peaceful.

 Note: I don't consider US politicians to be innocent/peaceful.

[Chris]

In general, it has to do with the imminency of the risk associated with the speach.  Yelling "Kill the Ump!" at a baseball game will probably not get you in trouble, because there's minimal risk of anyone actually being provoked to violence by that talk.  On the other hand, during an Anti-War ralley that was counter-protested by a "Support the Troops" organization back in 1991 (Care to guess which side I was on?) yelling "If the war mongers want death, let's show them what it looks like!" got someone arrested real quick.  (After the obligatory beating, I mean, handcuffing).

The way most of these people get away with it is that they claim to be talking in general terms, and about possible future actions.  And, most courts will go a long ways to protect speah which (arguably) is political speach.

[Guest]

In general, it has to do with the imminency of the risk associated with the speach.  Yelling "Kill the Ump!" at a baseball game will probably not get you in trouble, because there's minimal risk of anyone actually being provoked to violence by that talk.  On the other hand, during an Anti-War ralley that was counter-protested by a "Support the Troops" organization back in 1991 (Care to guess which side I was on?) ...

The side that was later proved to be incorrect?

[Standing Wolf]

Tony Blair in England is trying to outlaw that type of speech in England. Would it be going to far to do the same in the US?

Not only would it be a gross, wanton, flagrant violation of the First Amendment, it would be tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

We're in a world war, not a micturation contest.

[Guest]

Its a pretty simple concept.

Yelling "fire" in a theater is only illegal if there ISNT a fire in the theater. That makes your declaration of "fire" a lie. Saying that someone is *evil* is an opinion. If someone dies because you present something that you know to be a lie, itis your liability. If someone dies because of your opinion it was their decision to follow it, and their responsibility.

[Werewolf]

So let me see if I've got this right.

Hypothetically if one goes out and finds some guy who's not the swiftest turtle in the race, Makes friends and start having political conversations with him that run along the lines of gun grabbing anti's ought to be assasinated - It's all just opinion of course that these assasinations should happen- and he gets told over and over - knowing all along that this guy is like a lump of clay, moldable into whatever one wants to mold him into, that assasination is the only way to get rid of the gun grabbers and then he goes out and starts bumping them off one would bear no responsibility, legal or otherwise because it's not one's fault that this impressionable young man went out and acted on one's opinion.

Does that just about cover it - did I miss something in the discussion above?

Aside: sorry for the run on sentence. It seemed appropriate at the time...

[Leatherneck]

Mercedes Quote:
"There are already training camps all across the US that train young, malleable men to "blow up stuff". Tim McVeigh attended one."

I didn't know McVeigh was a Marine!

TC

[RevDisk]

Hypothetically if one goes out and finds some guy who's not the swiftest turtle in the race, Makes friends and start having political conversations with him that run along the lines of gun grabbing anti's ought to be assasinated - It's all just opinion of course that these assasinations should happen- and he gets told over and over - knowing all along that this guy is like a lump of clay, moldable into whatever one wants to mold him into, that assasination is the only way to get rid of the gun grabbers and then he goes out and starts bumping them off one would bear no responsibility, legal or otherwise because it's not one's fault that this impressionable young man went out and acted on one's opinion.

And what if someone followed your idea/suggestion of murdering the families of confirmed or suspected suicide bombers, and the feds tossed you in the cell?

Would you think your imprisonment would be justified or not?

[Werewolf]

Would you think your imprisonment would be justified or not?

I believe that the question is whether or not YOU would...

[Guest]

Hypothetically if one goes out and finds some guy who's not the swiftest turtle in the race, Makes friends and start having political conversations with him that run along the lines of gun grabbing anti's ought to be assasinated - It's all just opinion of course that these assasinations should happen- and he gets told over and over - knowing all along that this guy is like a lump of clay, moldable into whatever one wants to mold him into, that assasination is the only way to get rid of the gun grabbers and then he goes out and starts bumping them off one would bear no responsibility, legal or otherwise because it's not one's fault that this impressionable young man went out and acted on one's opinion.

Manipulating a plaint mind to the point where you have defacto controll over an impressionable person does in fact make you responsible for their actions. Case in point: Charles Manson.

[RevDisk]

I believe that the question is whether or not YOU would...

In most cases, I'd say no.  In your case, definitely not.  


Unless the person directing the other person is a parent, doctor, etc, nope.

[Werewolf]

Manipulating a plaint mind to the point where you have defacto controll over an impressionable person does in fact make you responsible for their actions.

So - muslim clerics that preach hate and tell their followers that killing non muslims is OK are responsible then?

[Werewolf]

In most cases, I'd say no.  In your case, definitely not.

I have to disagree. I cannot imagine that the founding fathers intended that freedom of speech would protect those who use their leadership positions to manipulate others into killing for them for that is indeed what some muslim clerics do.

Can anyone say wahabbist madrassa? Are there any madrassas in the USA?

[Myself]

I once went to a fire and yelled theater.  Nothing happened to me.

[Guest]

Manipulating a plaint mind to the point where you have defacto controll over an impressionable person does in fact make you responsible for their actions.

So - muslim clerics that preach hate and tell their followers that killing non muslims is OK are responsible then?

Only if you can establish two things:

1) that their followers are weak-willed to the point where they cannot properly form their own decisions.

and

2) that the cleric KNEW this, and exploited it.