Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
"A true test for our standards or does the scumbag deserve to be punished for what he said?" Well, it is against the law to support Criminal Activities and to be racist. It is against the Constitution and the Common Laws. So, what will be the test?
If there is no test, then the scumbag deserves to be punished for what he says, my question only gave these two options.
So basically people support the freedom of speech only when it is not against the law? What should the law be then?
It's pretty strange when everybody (and the law) supports Charlie Hebdo to say what they want, but the people Charlie Hebdo annoys are not allowed to respond by saying what they want. Doesn't that create a power inequality that enrages the side that is not allowed to respond?
Unless you mean to say that the guy literally supported terrorism in any substantial way with what he said (e.g. he helped the planning of further attacks with what he said), but then you might want to be so kind as to explain that. His tweet seems relatively harmless, more like an angry reaction.

ACIN's solution is to make freedom of speech more universal, I assume that means you would be allowed to say that you (morally) support this or that terrorist attack. Then we could ask further whether money also constitutes free speech as it does in US politics if I understand that correctly.

I can't say I prefer either extreme but arresting someone just for a tweet seems a bit heavy handed to me.