Is the pattern clear enough to start suing the right-wing nuts for inciting violence on

[melm00se]

34. see #23

My position is very similar to the Supreme Court as it relates to free speech.

The government must show overwhelming and compelling cases to restrict speech especially when such a restriction would fall into the prior restraint category which appears to be what you are advocating.

The best way to combat speech that you find odious is to expose it to sunlight but be prepared to defend your position with facts not feelings. I find so many people (young, old, rightwing, leftwing and just about every other category) who default to appealing to people's feelings rather than facts.

I am not saying that there are cases where you are offended. But because you are offended does not mean that you can or should stomp on someone's right to say things that offend. If that was the case, I would suggest that most art, most public speech, most religions and most documents (like the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, the UN Declaration of Human Rights) would end up in the trash bin because someone, somewhere, somehow is offended by them.

"Give me Liberty or give me death!!" - I am sure offended the British.

"We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." - Absolutely pissed off some Americans.

The Godfather - offended some Italian-Americans

This:


Nude people? In a Church? OMFG!!!!

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men (as well as many, many, many others for many, many, many reasons) have offended people so they would be banned outright and never to be read again with no recourse.

Both ends of the ideological spectrum want to remake the world to their vision and banish anything that does not align with their vision. This world, the real world, is going to see conflict and disagreement but there must be a way to prevent one side from ramming their vision down the throats of the other side. Doing so will bring both sides into violent confrontation. I am absolutely certain that neither side (with all hyperbole aside) wants open armed conflict. Remember, the last time Americans came to blows between each other it cost ~2% of the US population in deaths. That death toll today would equal 6.6 million people (which, IMO, is really low).