Message from @ManAnimal
Discord ID: 599314242541453323
remember, "those willing to trade liberty for security..."
this is such a trade-off
Incitement has never been protected under the 1st amendment
Trump could probably do some damage if he told his following to attack a group or something.
For example.
Trump wouldn't 'do the damage'
incitement present imminent threat
the reason it's considered illegal is because you have a right to self-defense
only those who acted upon his words would 'do'
the words *in* the incitement themselves are not illegal
words don't harm
actions do
MA just wants to be able to get away with punching whoever says anything he doesn't like
it's the context that presents a threat that does
WHAT?
I guess Hitler isn't responsible for the jew exterminations then
He only asked for it after all
i never said anything of the sort
the direct opposite in fact
well, that seems to be the subtext
>implying the holohoax happened
punching is an ACTION
<:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>
So is Hitler 100% innocent MA
but words aren't an action
but muh incitement
After all Hitler just spoke a bunch
<:thunk:462282216467333140>
Hitler didn't kill the jews but he should have
^
fine, destroy the freedoms you fought to protect
Tfw MA has successfully argued Hitler's innocence
The holodomor was an astral projection, the eskimos did 9/11
Those that don't understand history are doomed to repeat it
You're the repeater
and those who can't define their terms are doomed to be laughed at
Even the British understood incitement was bad at the time of the witch trials lol.
First, stigmitaize 'terror' so that even parents disciplining their kids of fathers fighting to protect their families are considered 'dangerous'
Of course