Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

@TheDefiant604 @georgetakei Yes, individuals can choose to sign their rights away. But even then, violating that agreement is not a crime and would, at worst (afaik), get him contempt of court or a revocation of bond leading to him being held in jail until trial.

More importantly, though, the restrictions imposed by the court are, by necessity, narrowly tailored to achieve a specific goal. They don't stop him from holding rallies or lying.

@isomeme @georgetakei There's a difference between their conduct. Manson's conduct passes the Brandenburg v Ohio test for incitement. Trump's does not (arguably; the J6 commission made a good case otherwise, but it's a high bar to clear).

The key is that Manson straight up said "go kill those people now" whereas Trump said stuff like "if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." The difference is the imminence, and whether or not they can prove he intended to cause lawless action in a court of law.

And, if you think about it, this standard is a good thing, because if we didn't have it, Trump's DOJ would have charged several prominent democrats during the 2020 BLM march for the same reason. This is exactly why we don't allow our government to punish subjective speech.

@georgetakei Nothing, legally, since "stochastic terrorism" isn't a crime.

The only real consequence for that is not voting for him.

@garyackerman Worse that using humans to generate content we would not be able to otherwise and then releasing it without vetting?

@NoBeerToday @svc @georgetakei I guess that's where we disagree, then, because I think the real problem is that they have a willingness to commit violence in the first place.

@NoBeerToday @svc @georgetakei I don't underestimate them at all; my entire point is that they're a bigger problem than the speakers
.
The speakers are just filling a niche created by the demand of the ignorant. Cut down one right wing ultranationalist talking head, and three new ones appear. We need to address the demand for this kind of rhetoric, not the supply, if we want to improve society.

These people choose their bigotry. We shouldn't attempt to reassign their agency to a smooth-talker with a big name.

@LevZadov @svc @georgetakei Nor should you.

@pomegranate_stew @svc @georgetakei I disagree. They fan the flames, but they're not the origin. The origin is in the fear of the unknown. The more diversity one is exposed to, the less bigoted they're likely to be. Politicians talking openly with hatred just enables those who had previously held back to express their views, where normally they might have been silenced by shame. The more that express those views, the more see that as normalized and feel comfortable expressing similar views. But they were already there. Those things are cultural and are imparted unintentionally and subconsciously during childhood (ask me how I know).

That said, the above only applies to adults, who are fully responsible for their actions. Children are more impressionable and susceptible.

@svc @georgetakei You're not giving people enough credit. We live in the information age. It's absurdly easy to get out of a disinformation bubble, but most people stuck in one don't want to leave because it feels like a comfort zone to them.

And, yes, speech does promote ideas, but we choose how we react to those ideas, and that's key.