Who killed Mr. Boddy in the study and with what?: the great debate topic™®

[sir dooble]

That's not actually relevant to what he's saying at all.

It doesn't matter if other people (non-government) can decide not to listen to you.
Because some people WILL decide to listen to you.
And the things you are saying, in this situation, are endangering.

When people preach extremism and radicalise people, then those who have been radicalised do dangerous things.
Like fly to the Middle East and kill 'heretics'. Or they detonate bombs in your country.


It's prior to that happening that the government should intervene and say, "no, you can't say those things".
Because those things get people killed.
It only takes one person saying something, to then convince one person, to then lead to the deaths of tens of other people at home or abroad.

[Ad Bot]

[Darryl McKoy]

Yeah as dooble said, that doesn't really make sense. My question remains.

[Georges]

What about ISIL going around preaching their extremism and radicalising minors?

Hmm... I suppose you're right. I mean, ideally the solution here is destroy CIA (I'm assuming that's what you meant) for reasons other than what they've said. But that's way easier said than done.

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

i stand by the "only if they are handicaps" option
the ideal (online) solution is that every mouse, by law, has a spike inside where you put your palm. you need your hand on the mouse for the keyboard to work, and if you type some dumbass stuff the spike comes out and impales your hand.

[SeventhSandwich]

It's easy to get wrapped up in saber-rattling over the government 'restricting free speech', but our government has actually been pretty good at keeping the message of free expression held up in federal courts.

The only exceptions are ones that any sane person would never take issue with - stuff like calling 'fire!' in a crowded movie theater, committing libel against your business partner and making him lose all of his sales, and wearing blatantly tribal and offensive shirts in public schools where kids are legally obligated to attend.

[Nonnel]

But the government shouldn't have a position on what is and is not morally correct. Only if or when someone is harmed should they get involved. It's not their place to say whether or not radical Islam is a correct stance. Promoting it should not be illegal. Practicing it should.

[Darryl McKoy]

But the government shouldn't have a position on what is and is not morally correct. Only if or when someone is harmed should they get involved. It's not their place to say whether or not radical Islam is a correct stance. Promoting it should not be illegal. Practicing it should.

So you don't believe in prevention then? What you're saying is that radicals should be able to groom minors into terrorists, but only when the minor acts on their recent radicalisation should the government step in..

[Rally]

If your speech is rallying people to commit violence/commit terrorism/disrupting the general public peace, then I think that should be put down. However, "hate-speech" should not be defined by hurt feelings. That's just stupid.

[sir dooble]

But the government shouldn't have a position on what is and is not morally correct. Only if or when someone is harmed should they get involved. It's not their place to say whether or not radical Islam is a correct stance. Promoting it should not be illegal. Practicing it should.

So your suggestion is to prosecute the people after they've blown their bodies to pieces and taken a shopping centre with them?
Not before, while they're calling for people to do the same?

[Nonnel]

Yes. Teach your kid not to be persuaded by dirty muslim guys in white vans. Or to use at least some level of common sense. Freedom of speech should only mean total freedom of speech.

[Pie Crust]

[Xealyth]

But the government shouldn't have a position on what is and is not morally correct. Only if or when someone is harmed should they get involved. It's not their place to say whether or not radical Islam is a correct stance. Promoting it should not be illegal. Practicing it should.

Yes they do, there are universal correct morals that the government, and sane people, oblige to. I'm not entirely sure why you brought up the concept of morals, as each individual believes what is personally right and wrong. I think you meant ethics, but I digress.

[Nonnel]

I think you meant ethics, but I digress.

You'd be wrong.
Different groups have different sets of morals. The government should not choose which are right or wrong.

[Darryl McKoy]

You'd be wrong.
Different groups have different sets of morals. The government should not choose which are right or wrong.

So you don't think governments should have any input in law then either? Because if they do have influence over law, they are very much choosing what is right and wrong.

[Nonnel]

So you don't think governments should have any input in law then either? Because if they do have influence over law, they are very much choosing what is right and wrong.

Law should only decide things when someone has harmed someone else.