Should we restrict freedom of speech?

[Husar]

Yeah, that sounds about right. Of course, killing the president is rather difficult. Not to mention a rather uncommon thing to attempt.

Murder in general is hard in many ways and a rather uncommon thing, should we make it legal?
And killing the president is only hard because when you want to get close to him, the secret service, police etc put a lot of restrictions on you, I don't think they will grant you the freedom to bear arms and the freedom to proclaim you will shoot him when you are 10m away from him and then just put a bodyguard betweeen you and him to catch the bullet in case you pull the trigger because everything else you do is perfectly fine and legal.

Should we arrest the Whitest Kids U Know for their presidential sketch? What if they were actually serious, speaking to terrorist cells in America? I mean, what better place than plain site to hide a conspiracy?

Yes, you should, I don't even know who they are anyway, so why would I care?!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Murder in general is hard in many ways and a rather uncommon thing, should we make it legal?
And killing the president is only hard because when you want to get close to him, the secret service, police etc put a lot of restrictions on you, I don't think they will grant you the freedom to bear arms and the freedom to proclaim you will shoot him when you are 10m away from him and then just put a bodyguard betweeen you and him to catch the bullet in case you pull the trigger because everything else you do is perfectly fine and legal.

You don't see the difference between saying "someone should kill the president" and attempting to do so? The secret service is right to stop someone attempting to shoot the president because it'll be pretty obvious - he or she will be drawing a firearm within range of the president.

Yes, you should, I don't even know who they are anyway, so why would I care?!

Did you watch the video?

[Husar]

You don't see the difference between saying "someone should kill the president" and attempting to do so? The secret service is right to stop someone attempting to shoot the president because it'll be pretty obvious - he or she will be drawing a firearm within range of the president.

Yes, so what about school shootings?
Establish a secret service in every school so they can stop anyone who draws a firearm next to someone else or maybe check people who keep writing essays about murdering everybody else?
If security only counts for the president then I'd say he is more equal than everybody else.
The point is not to arrest everybody who opens her mouth, but those who have a serious intention, which, of course, is hard to prove, which again, is why it's not done often in countries where saying certain things is not exactly allowed.
What you do hear now and then though is that people are threatened and police can't do anything and then some day the person is found dead...I'd say that is a flawed system to we have to give everybody guns.

Did you watch the video?

No, or maybe I started it but was distracted, don't remember.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yes, so what about school shootings?
Establish a secret service in every school so they can stop anyone who draws a firearm next to someone else or maybe check people who keep writing essays about murdering everybody else?

Usually those people are provided with counseling. They usually aren't restricted from continued writing.

If security only counts for the president then I'd say he is more equal than everybody else.
The point is not to arrest everybody who opens her mouth, but those who have a serious intention, which, of course, is hard to prove, which again, is why it's not done often in countries where saying certain things is not exactly allowed.
What you do hear now and then though is that people are threatened and police can't do anything and then some day the person is found dead...I'd say that is a flawed system to we have to give everybody guns.

If it's not done often, why do it at all? I think we can afford a few deaths every once and a while in exchange for greater freedom; that's the reasoning for having cars despite the thousands killed every year.

[Husar]

Usually those people are provided with counseling. They usually aren't restricted from continued writing.

Yes, but it's a consequence that comes directly from what they say, I didn't say cut their hands off or glue their mouths shut, that's not exactly how I see the restrictions.

And for the rest you should know by now that I greatly favour trains over cars anyway, don't even try to convince me using cars.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yes, but it's a consequence that comes directly from what they say, I didn't say cut their hands off or glue their mouths shut, that's not exactly how I see the restrictions.

Wait, so what do you do to people who "incite violence" or whatever you want to ban?

[Husar]

Wait, so what do you do to people who "incite violence" or whatever you want to ban?

Depends on how serious you think they are, there are usually judges to decide that sort of thing.
I would start with keeping an eye on them and end somewhere else I haven't really thought of, but certainly not more than 2 years in prison, though for that there should be a biot more evidence you have to come up with after investigating them. Some kind of restraining order to let them know you are watching them should suffice in many cases. Like some piece of paper that says "please stop calling for the death of Mr. XYZ or we will be really angry." That way you can also see whether he is really serious about it because he will probably go on then and then I'd be a bit more harsh. Or she/he will kill the person right away, but then that doesn't really make a difference anymore anyway whether you have the limit on free speech or not.