I’m not allowed to shout “fire” in a crowded theater . . .

[as seen on tv]

But I’m apparently allowed to send out 50,000 tweets a day urging random murders?

I’m referring of course to Muhammad Yourself Abdul-a-dweeb, who killed 4 people yesterday, and wounded a bunch more. He was apparently an avid twitter follower of ISIS tweets.

I renew my question - why am I allowed to send out 50,000 tweets a day, simply to cajole mentally ill loners into attacking random people ?

Someone (on the far left) is bound to reply: “But governments threaten each other with war all the time”

Stop right there. Yes, they do. But there is a difference between Bush or Obama saying they intend to “degrade and destroy” terrorists in the middle east, and sending out tweets saying “If you can’t make it here in person, kill the next civilian you see, and you’ll go directly to paradise and have sex with 72 of the beautiful virgins that we massacred last week”

In fact, Obama has sent drones and cruise missiles to “take out” the most notorious terrorist leaders who are blogging/webcasting in English – jihadists who are instructing their acolytes to murder random people. We might debate whether a president has the ability to assassinate an American living abroad, but he’s doing it. Why continue to provide the conduit (tweets) which result in such horrific crimes?

I’m not in favor of censorship – internet or otherwise. But I’m also not in favor shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, or a constant drumbeat exhorting the slaughter of innocents. For someone who believes they are appointed by god for a mission, or who simply hears voices, the constant exhortation to commit mayhem may be impossible to resist.

 

[BitterPill]

View attachment 27681 But I’m apparently allowed to send out 50,000 tweets a day urging random murders?

I’m referring of course to Muhammad Yourself Abdul-a-dweeb, who killed 4 people yesterday, and wounded a bunch more. He was apparently an avid twitter follower of ISIS tweets.

I renew my question - why am I allowed to send out 50,000 tweets a day, simply to cajole mentally ill loners into attacking random people ?

Someone (on the far left) is bound to reply: “But governments threaten each other with war all the time”

Stop right there. Yes, they do. But there is a difference between Bush or Obama saying they intend to “degrade and destroy” terrorists in the middle east, and sending out tweets saying “If you can’t make it here in person, kill the next civilian you see, and you’ll go directly to paradise and have sex with 72 of the beautiful virgins that we massacred last week”

In fact, Obama has sent drones and cruise missiles to “take out” the most notorious terrorist leaders who are blogging/webcasting in English – jihadists who are instructing their acolytes to murder random people. We might debate whether a president has the ability to assassinate an American living abroad, but he’s doing it. Why continue to provide the conduit (tweets) which result in such horrific crimes?

I’m not in favor of censorship – internet or otherwise. But I’m also not in favor shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, or a constant drumbeat exhorting the slaughter of innocents. For someone who believes they are appointed by god for a mission, or who simply hears voices, the constant exhortation to commit mayhem may be impossible to resist.

If you want to shout fire in a crowded theater, make sure there is a fire first.

 

[fairsheet]

Alas, the exact same argument as yours, has been made in the context of the American redwing media.

Of course, you could rejoin that the American media is American and thus protected by our 1st Amendment. To that I might ask, is Rupert Murdoch American? But then, that would be little more than a diversion. The real and relevant question would be, what difference does it make if the evil-shouter is American or otherwise?

 

[as seen on tv]

If you want to shout fire in a crowded theater, make sure there is a fire first.

how does this apply to ISIS exhortations to kill random strangers? make sure they're really non-believers, first, or you risk not getting your 72 virgins?

 

[as seen on tv]

Alas, the exact same argument as yours, has been made in the context of the American redwing media.

Of course, you could rejoin that the American media is American and thus protected by our 1st Amendment. To that I might ask, is Rupert Murdoch American? But then, that would be little more than a diversion. The real and relevant question would be, what difference does it make if the evil-shouter is American or otherwise?

if you're exhorting someone to commit a violent crime, criminal charges can, and should be brought, irrespective of the source.

like they did against those who urged ferguson residents to burn and loot . ..