zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
Free speech balances delicately, and that should be debated vigorously, but it should not be treated as an absolute.

You shouldn't be free to incite violence. Nor should a company help that speech spread.

>>tarkin+a7
> "You shouldn't be free to incite violence. Nor should a company help that speech spread."

only the fringiest of fringes argue for absolutes. everyone (else) is arguing about where the line is drawn. for instance, if we take yours at face value, you'd be arguing against the american revolution.

>>clairi+j8
Many self-described free speech advocates here also draw the line at inciting violence.

>>krapp+h9
our justice system isn't built on prevention, for pre-cognition, thought-crimes, or any malfeasance really, because that's the road to any of a slew of nasty -isms (totalitarianism, authoritarianism, etc.). justice is served after a wrong, not before it. that's intentional.

we prevent crime by being good to each other and expecting the best, not trying to force behaviors and ways of thinking. it's actually amazing that we are so good to each other--everyday there are probably millions of opportunities for strangers to kill or maim each other, and they blow right past that opportunity every time. it's awe-inspiring, really.

the first step is to stop being fearful.