by brigandish | 2025-06-09 03:52:22+00:00
> "punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings?" comment. I have my suspicions on who you're referring to

and

> Who precisely are you talking about here? Don't hide behind implication, name them.

Are the same question. His name is Moussa Kadri[0], the person who brandished the weapon (actus reus)in order to physically harm another (mens rea).

The man he attacked, the one whom you would criminalise, what was his mens rea?

> > Assault is a very old law with a lot of case law behind it (that is the answer to the who decides) that is very easy to understand

Firstly, you've missed the point about that. It being an old law does not necessarily make it a good law (though it is), it means that a) that you should have heard of it, and b) it has a lot of case law, as I pointed out. That's who decides, precedent set by the common people using the common law.

> As too with hate speech, or rather, speech that is considered harmful to society.

Equivocation, and cowardice I might add, I won't see you banning a whole host of harmful material, like that which was burnt. Regardless, violence against people for exercising freedoms is harmful to society, which is why they're often talked about and pushed to become rights, they're that fundamental. Freedom of speech, expression, conscience and religion are liberal values that distinguish societies with them from those that don't have them, like ones with blasphemy laws.

> Blasphemy used to be amongst that list but we have since moved on from the state protecting the majority from religious affront to instead protecting vulnerable minorities from attack and dehumanisation.

We "moved on" from blasphemy laws by relentlessly criticising, arguing with, mocking and deriding those who supported them, along with their ideas. Sometimes that speech was free, sometimes it wasn't.

Now, blasphemy laws are back, increasingly, that is the point. We haven't moved on if we're slowly reintroducing them, and regardless of that, freedom of speech protects minorities from attack and dehumanisation. Not only do societies with more freedom of speech have greater safety and opportunity for minorities than those without, freedom of speech is a right that the rich and powerful almost always have, giving it to the poor, weak, or just to any individual gives them strength - the individual being the ultimate minority.

> > you have no such presumption

> Don't I?

Quite obviously not.

> <u>Freeze peach purists tend to have very similar beliefs. Speak to one and you've effectively spoken to them all.</u>

Arrogance isn't overconfidence, it's not listening, which is why you've repeated the straw man from your previous reply. If a purist is one who supports the laws of assault, harassment, and defamation while not criminalising other forms of speech, then I'm a purist ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In fact, I support the burning of a Quran and its printing (even though it contains what you would deem hate speech, if you were to be principled about it).

> > Rhetoric doesn't kill people, people kill people

> This seems rather incongruous with your earlier quote of how words can incite violence.

The US defines the test for this as whether a threat is "credible" and "imminent" (see Brandenburg v. Ohio[1]). Very sensible.

> It's also an extremely American phrase

The logical form of an argument has Americanness? No, logical form can be removed from its original context and reapplied to other matters, as in this case - where does the responsibility lie, the victim, the inanimate object, or the attacker? Watch:

"He burnt a Quran, we should criminalise doing so, the attack was inevitable, why stir things up?"

"She was on her own at night in a short skirt, we should criminalise doing so, the attack was inevitable, why stir things up?" You'll find some justification for that in the Quran, so I shouldn't be surprised that you've taken the position you have.

> used there to dismiss calls for gun control.

They have gun control, it's all about where to draw the line ;) The UK government decided to take away the right to arm oneself for self defence, which is allowing them to continue to remove other rights. As Frederick Douglass wrote[2]:

“the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box; that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country”

> I have yet to see an instance where adding proverbial fuel to a flame successfully tames it.

Challenging something can tame it. Not challenging it allows it to burn. As an example, due to blasphemy laws[3] and hate speech laws[4] in the Weimar Republic, the anti-semitism coming from the pulpit wasn't able to be challenged, and repression of the speech of national socialists also removed that chance, while affording them fame and access to two-tier justice:

> And while hate speech cases were prosecuted, the vast majority of assaults on Jews weren’t.

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and isn't it also ironic that those who would want to institute "hate" speech laws the most, who hide behind them at the first hint of criticism, are the ones actually committing violence. Between knifing someone and burning a book, I know which needs to be criminalised. Why don't you? To quote from [4]:

“Where are your priorities, ladies and gentleman? You're giving away what's most precious in your society and you're giving it away without a fight, and you're even praising the people who want to deny you the right to resist it.

Shame on you while you do this.”

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0r57n2qvzqo

[1] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/incitement-to-immine...

[2] https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/lobb-the-life-and-times-o...

[3] https://newrepublic.com/article/120519/tyranny-silence-how-o...

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDap-K6GmL0