General Discussion

bhikkhu

(10,789 posts)

20. The difference is in the status of victimhood

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:15 AM

Sep 2012

if one becomes an unwilling victim of violence due to someone's interpretation of any exercise of freedom, then there are no extenuating circumstances that void the case or that make the victim less innocent.

If, on the other hand, one makes another person the unwitting victim of mob violence, then the violence is one crime with its innocent victim, but the creator of the situation is a criminal as well.

Again, if you set up a situation where you incite a crowd upon an unwitting victim, you don't get to walk away with a smirk and claim innocence.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Incitement to Riot is not protected "free speech" [View all] bhikkhu Sep 2012 OP

"Incitement to riot" has specific elements not met here jberryhill Sep 2012 #1

That is true... Jeff In Milwaukee Sep 2012 #8

+1 onenote Sep 2012 #9

Then we must change the standards of what it means to incite a riot. Zalatix Sep 2012 #31

Your failure to use a sarcasm tag.... jberryhill Sep 2012 #33

Your response incited me to spew Pepsi at my monitor. Pay up! Zalatix Sep 2012 #34

Lots of constitutional lawyers posting today. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #2

How was this incitement to riot? NT Llewlladdwr Sep 2012 #3

Having watched the Innocence of Muslims video - bhikkhu Sep 2012 #5

But you ARE condoning the violent response. Llewlladdwr Sep 2012 #10

Someone murdered Stevens, and that's murder bhikkhu Sep 2012 #12

Just like the rape victim is partially to blame for dressing the way she dressed. egduj Sep 2012 #17

The difference is in the status of victimhood bhikkhu Sep 2012 #20

So if I put up a pro-Obama movie and 1,000 Teabaggers go on a murderous rampage.......... Zalatix Sep 2012 #32

And that's why this isn't incitement. Llewlladdwr Sep 2012 #23

As I understand it, there is some question as to whether the murder of Stevens and the JDPriestly Sep 2012 #27

Quite true. However, the incitement took place on Egyptian television... arcane1 Sep 2012 #4

Romney invoked the constitution several times in his speech about it bhikkhu Sep 2012 #6

It's not an incitement to riot, it's an excuse to riot. eom yawnmaster Sep 2012 #7

exactly, by people who are insecure in their belief system nt msongs Sep 2012 #11

And we have no idea whether the killing of Stevens had to do with the riot and the movie JDPriestly Sep 2012 #28

Only incitement to riot was on Egyptian TV and by Egyptian religious leaders; probably same in Libya nlof Sep 2012 #13

Perhaps true. But I am very curious as to who made the video and why bhikkhu Sep 2012 #14

I also don't think our constitutional rights are guaranteed in a foreign land... rustydog Sep 2012 #15

True, and I'll drop it now anyway - but Romney was the main point bhikkhu Sep 2012 #22

What if I, as a Catholic, killed an artist... joeglow3 Sep 2012 #16

Or a christian killing some woman because he thought she practiced withcraft... egduj Sep 2012 #19

The fact that you had to go back over 100 years proves my point. joeglow3 Sep 2012 #21

Correct SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #18

I'm glad Obama is avoiding this topic - it deprives Repugs of the wedge issue they'd love to have. reformist2 Sep 2012 #24

The 1st Amendment is irrelevant when we're not talking about the US. HOWEVER: Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #25

I completely agree, my friend. LAGC Sep 2012 #29

Right. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #26

The related concepts of "incitement" & "Fighting Words" have been significantly narrowed since 1917 Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #30

Thanks. R.A.V. is the strongest decision on this in my opinion. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #38

i find your lack of logic... ProdigalJunkMail Sep 2012 #35

There's a lot more to say. cali Sep 2012 #36

This was protected speech Yo_Mama Sep 2012 #37