[Funnygurl555]

Originally Posted by rayword45

It's hard for me to say if this is applicable to Alex Jones, but it is definitely applicable to Milo Yiannopodop (who is only relevant in this thread because of OP) and I say yes, that kind of speech (doxxing a trans woman and inciting violence against her for "lulz") should NOT be protected.

I'm never gonna get why Alfred likes Milo so much, but also yeah dont really care or know enough to comment on that stuff. That shit sounds bad, though.

I'm Asian, if someone wants to say "all y'all Asians smell bad" or "lol Asians got teh small cocks" I could give less of a fuck, but when someone says "MURDER ALL ORIENTALS!" then I say de-platform, de-platform, de-platform.

I see langauge like that as an actual threat, so I agree too. That's a bit of an extreme case though, yeah?

Actually I just remembered the bullshit Jones pulled regarding Sandy Hook, so yeah, de-platform. I don't even blame him for the Pizzagate shooting, but I certainly have to blame him for inciting the harassment and threatening of grieving parents what the fuck

So this is what I got from the CBS article about the lawsuit the families filed against him

"The lawsuits, filed late Monday, allege that Jones' insistence that the shooting was staged led others to make death threats against the victims' families."

Yeah, it's disgusting to do what Jones did, but all he did was be a conspiracy theorist. We should be blaming the people who issued the death threats. I don't get how it follows to issue death threats based on the information they received from Infowars. He didn't say to kill the families.

Originally Posted by devonin

So do you believe it is impossible for somebody, using words, to convince another person to commit a violent act that they wouldn't have committed without hearing those words?

Yeah, it's possible. But the person commiting the violent act is cognizant of the law. They shouldn't be stupid and do the wrong thing.

Are all people who are incited to commit violence 100% absolutely -already going to be violent- no matter what anybody said?

I wouldn't go that far.

Because if it possible for somebody, using words, to incite another person to violence who wouldn't have committed that violence without the words, I don't understand how you can argue that the person who said those words bears no responsibility for the violence that results. Especially when their -goal- in saying the words is to -incite violence-

I think I already responded to this in the first thing I quoted from you

edit: i just realized im contradicting myself my brain's pooping

encouraging, urging, or persuading unless they were assisting with the violent act.

There's a way that inciting violence is actually bad and illegal (see: what I said to rayword). I just think there's a difference between calling someone a bunch of bad words and actually having something to do with their death (e.g. by saying that this person needs to die and asking to kill the person)

So inciting violence is actually bad and it was wrong for me to say it wasn't. It doesn't always make someone deserving of blame, though.