depends how far people attribute incitement to violence... do you think dankulas video was incitement to violence?

didnt someone post a video literally saying she wants someone to kill sargon.. in a very specific way

like if a politician were to, before a large crowd, advocate that a certain group be exterminated

dont recall anything happening to her

I think a politician would not get very far, saying something like that

at the end of the day, if they are saying its their opinion it should happen.. its still just an opinion

yeah but do you think that being illegal would be anti-liberal

and i mean, politicians have gotten far on rhetoric like that

if a politician went up and said all white people should be exterminated... I doubt they would get very far

even in south africa that is a minority of people and theyre usually dismissed/disavowed by all the other politicians

i would rather know their opinion... so I could do something to help change it

i mean it's happened in rwanda

but what i'm asking is would it be inherently anti-liberal to ban that

perhaps if the politicians had sat down and talked openly the tutsi's would be in greater numbers

It would depend on how you are defining liberalism

pretty much anything involving banning something a person can do on their own is anti-liberal

anything you can do on an island on your own shouldnt be banned... I can express my opinion all day long on an island... I cant murder someone, I cant fire someone, or threaten someone

there is also no paradigm of exclusive property rights on an island

I can claim I have a right to anything on the island if I want

so why can't i use any object as i please in a liberal society?

because other people have liberty too, so other things come into play.. like murder... you couldnt do that on an island on your own... but you could think about it.. or talk about it..

yeah, so why can the same thing not apply to speech?

because you can do all of those things on the island

even if you take a hardline stance predicated on self-ownership, speech is something that physically interacts with another person's body

yeah and on an island you can use any object as you please

yeah

but you cant take it from anyone

there is not really any such thing as "property", as property is an exclusionary concept

but cant hurt anyone with it

on an island on your own, you cant take property from anyone else

why can you own property in the first place

ownership is exclusionary

you can't exclude anyone from using anything in a scenario where you're the only person

but nobody owns your opinions

it's not the opinion that's being punished necessarily, but you expressing it

i mean you could argue that intent plays a factor, but that's true of most crimes

I dont really think theres much difference in having and opinion and expressing an opinion

and i mean of course, i don't think liberalism is necessarily contingent on this hardline conception of self-ownership

are you saying everyone should just shut up and not share any opinion in case it offends someone?

of course there's a difference

i'm not saying anybody do anything i'm just saying i don't necessarily think suppression of speech is inherently anti-liberal