[Fwd: THE TEARS OF THE MIGHTY]

[Dace]

From: Charles Brown
>
>>>> "Dace" <edace at flinthills.com> 03/24/00 02:07PM >>>
>>TD: If a racist makes a speech in which the sole objective is to persuade,
>then
>>this cannot be banned.  Even if you're trying to persuade people to commit
>a
>>violent act, all you can really do is persuade them that such an act is
>>correct.  They have to take the next step of translating that opinion into
>>action.  So, you're leaving out a crucial step.  Persuasion does not lead
>>directly to action.  That intermediate step is what separates speech from
>>action and makes the actor, not the talker, culpable.
>>
>>_________
>>
>>CB: When you say cannot be banned, this is not even correct in the U.S.
>Supreme Court standard on the First Amendment. If speech is incitement to
>imminent lawless action, it can be banned, prohibited. This is the
>Brandenburg standard. The speaker and the actor BOTH can be convicted of
>committing a crime.
>
>
>Incitement is not persuasion.
>
>_________
>
>CB: The same words can persuade and incite to action.
>
It depends on the situation.  When the potential for lawless action is
imminent, then persuasion becomes incitement.  When the discussion is
removed from any immediate possibility of lawless action, then it's just
persuasion.  So, when that creep on the Marxist list indirectly suggested
that Doug should be executed, that was an attempt to persuade people that
such a thing would be good and not an incitement to actually carry out the
deed.  If, however, this discussion had occurred in a real place, and Doug
had been present, and he was bound and gagged and tied to a chair, and a gun
was lying on a table beside him, and the room was filled with rabid
LBO-haters, that could be construed as incitement.

Ted