Free Speech????

[nailer]

Originally Posted by finnbow

There were all sorts of criminal prosecutions for incitement back in the '60's when civil rights leaders gave fiery speeches that were followed by riots.

Do you think these prosecutions were warranted?

[nailer]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

As well as those sent in to confront them.

Who sent the counter protesters? Most were local yokels.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by nailer

Do you think these prosecutions were warranted?

Absolutely.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2101

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

We have had the media controlling the direction of conversation since as long as there was a media.

But, IMO controlling the conversation between individual people is intrusive and abusive, more like some communist country or dictatorship.

What is next after Facebook ? The internet ?

You didn't answer my question.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Absolutely.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2101

So, now you're a legal expert too. I'm not, so please explain it to me in lay terms.

I clearly remember certain aspects of the MLK Baltimore riots and I'm pretty sure fiery speeches were mostly, like the riots, part of the symptom/cure and not the cause.

FWIW, inciting to riot is certainly not a First Amendment right. Unless the citizens are rioting against a tyrannical sovereign which is what most African Americans were doing in 1968.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

You didn't answer my question.

You mean the eight questions, all asking the same thing, you asked as a deflection away from Zero's two questions you didn't answer, counselor?

[d-ray657]

18 U.S.C. Section 2101

"(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts."

[sheltiedave]

The right to free speech also comes with a responsibility to use that right in a manner that is conducive to the good of society.

The fact that we fought a war against the Nazis, that we fought a war between the states, and that the KKK represented, and still represents, one of the most evil of beliefs against ethnic minorities and religious minorities, makes this troika of hate groups a cabal that most Americans are happy to actively oppose.

You then mix in white supremicists, and white nationalists, and there is a powder keg of ignorant idiots ready to explode at a moment's notice.

There is little nuanced ground to walk on in this most basic of confrontations over the soul of American exceptionalism. Can we take a mongrel's stew of nationalities, accept each immigrant and allow their talents and abilities enrich our national future, or are we destined to again turn our sight inward, to become a slumbering giant that is fearful of international cooperation and moral advancement, content to ferment with our petty racial and nationalistic prejudices, as we shrink from any leadership commitments? I say no.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military's service leaders have gotten it right...our nation must lead, and our military must strive to fight against racism, moral turpitude, and promote leadership and equality. There can be no shirking burdens because of fear or hatred. We can do no less as citizens.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by nailer

You mean the eight questions, all asking the same thing, you asked as a deflection away from his two questions you didn't answer, counselor?

Actually, the question sought context. Is the harm caused by the possession of monopoly power in those industries as important as the harm caused by monopoly power over a ubiquitous platform for communication? The monopoly power exercised by Google and Facebook is indeed frightening, but so is the monopoly power in the other industries. If we are going to argue that there should be legal intervention to dissipate such power by Facebook and Google, it should be recognized that it is legitimate to intervene in the other industries too.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by nailer

So, now you're a legal expert too. I'm not, so please explain it to me in lay terms.

Are you really too dense to understand the following (or are you being deliberately obtuse like Whell, simply for the sake of an argument)? You asked a question and I gave you a clear, concise answer.

(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—
(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.