Websites go so far as to block entire continents now instead of just not placing cookies inside visitors' browsers. So I only have the title to go by. I agree, but in order for speech to be truly free, there should also be the freedom to incite violence. When people practice violence, they take on a personal risk, so it's already balanced. There is no need to then also go after the person(s) who incited them. There is a threshold of anger that needs to exist before people would take on the risk of committing violent acts. Thus the elitists receive the responsibility of not angering the population too much.
In the US there is at least some degree of freedom of speech. Although inciting violence is banned, there needs to actually be violence and, from what I understand, it must be demonstrated that the violence was linked to words, before people can be sentenced for it.
In the Netherlands, the situation is more dire. Not only is there no need to demonstrate that the words are linked to violence; there doesn't need to be any violence in the first place. There doesn't even need to be a threat of any violence erupting; if such a situation is purely hypothetical, you can already get in trouble. So is it based purely on the contents of your speech? No, not even that. There's a politician here who argued for peaceful resistance, but the mass(ively deceptive) media used soundbites to make it look as if he was inciting violence, and he then got sentenced based on those alterations of his words. The judge even admitted that he didn't mean to incite violence, but the hypothetical situation of violence erupting as a result of soundbites, which there was no indication whatsoever of actually happening, was sufficient. Even if soundbites were such a problem, they went after the wrong people, they should've gone after the massively deceptive media.
As you can see, banning incitement to violence is simply another form of virtue signaling that gets used to censor people. Simply to guarantee that this doesn't happen, we must lift all such bans. People won't take to violence over nothing. The underlying anger, and the causes of it, are the issue that must be focused on.
Log in
We are given rights and freedoms from nature; no government should take those away.
Websites go so far as to block entire continents now instead of just not placing cookies inside visitors' browsers. So I only have the title to go by. I agree, but in order for speech to be truly free, there should also be the freedom to incite violence. When people practice violence, they take on a personal risk, so it's already balanced. There is no need to then also go after the person(s) who incited them. There is a threshold of anger that needs to exist before people would take on the risk of committing violent acts. Thus the elitists receive the responsibility of not angering the population too much.
In the US there is at least some degree of freedom of speech. Although inciting violence is banned, there needs to actually be violence and, from what I understand, it must be demonstrated that the violence was linked to words, before people can be sentenced for it.
In the Netherlands, the situation is more dire. Not only is there no need to demonstrate that the words are linked to violence; there doesn't need to be any violence in the first place. There doesn't even need to be a threat of any violence erupting; if such a situation is purely hypothetical, you can already get in trouble. So is it based purely on the contents of your speech? No, not even that. There's a politician here who argued for peaceful resistance, but the mass(ively deceptive) media used soundbites to make it look as if he was inciting violence, and he then got sentenced based on those alterations of his words. The judge even admitted that he didn't mean to incite violence, but the hypothetical situation of violence erupting as a result of soundbites, which there was no indication whatsoever of actually happening, was sufficient. Even if soundbites were such a problem, they went after the wrong people, they should've gone after the massively deceptive media.
As you can see, banning incitement to violence is simply another form of virtue signaling that gets used to censor people. Simply to guarantee that this doesn't happen, we must lift all such bans. People won't take to violence over nothing. The underlying anger, and the causes of it, are the issue that must be focused on.