I'm saying whether or not something is incitement depends on the context: A violent context would more likely be incitement than a non-violent context. Thats all I'm saying. You really don't need to read anything more into that.

Quote:


Even if that "context" is something that occurs afterwards?

Quote:


You have never answered this question John:

Should it be illegal to ridicule religious people?

Also, you have never explained how you can support a law regardless of who it is applied to at the same time as offering to change your mind if it gets applied to comedians.

Do you think it is a good idea to support a law, not based on what it explicitly forbids people from doing, but on what you think it forbids them from "effectively doing"?

Do you think it is a good idea to have a law that says one thing but is applied on a completely different basis?

Would you actually support someone being put in jail for encouraging hatred of Nazis, or would common sense kick in? No wonder you are so eager to defend Muslims.

Islam and its enablers and defenders (Bwian, gandalf, kameel, gweg, Gino, Arsie, Mothra et al) are enemies of free speech as it has been understood in the West since French and American revolutions (that is, since the founding of Australia).

Exhibit No 47,985:

Richard Dawkins is dragged into America’s tedious free-speech war
Douglas Murray    23 July 2017

Richard Dawkins is, by any standards, one of the most famous scientists on the planet. His books have brought writing about science to a world-wide audience. One recognition of this achievement is that just this week his book ‘The Selfish Gene’ was voted the most inspiring science book of all time in a public poll commissioned by the Royal Society.

However it is important that the gentle denizens of a city like Berkeley be prevented from hearing from such a person. There were to have an opportunity next month, when KPFA in Berkeley were due to host an evening centred around Professor Dawkins’s new book ‘Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist'. But people who had booked tickets for this event have just received the following email:

Dear Richard Dawkins event ticket buyers,

We regret to inform you that KPFA has canceled our event with Richard Dawkins. We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn’t know he had offended and hurt – in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people.

KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech. We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier. We also apologize to all those inconvenienced by this cancellation. Your ticket purchases will automatically be refunded by Brown Paper Tickets.
Sincerely,

KPFA Radio 94.1 FM

If I were one of the recipients of such an email I would not just spit on my Brown Paper refund, I would (hoping that Professor Dawkins might forgive the allusion) turn my back on KPFA and Berkeley and shake the dust from my feet.

What is this nonsense? We didn’t know that a distinguished scientist who we are lucky enough to have been hosting has expressed his views on earlier occasions?

We are sorry that one of the world’s most famous atheists turned out to have expressed views on religion?

We are sorry that one of the world’s most famous atheists who we were about to host has when we had assumed he was just a good old blasphemer of Christianity and every religion except Islam? I do sometimes wonder why the Ayatollah’s advance guard in places like Berkeley don’t just move to Qom and be done with it.

Anyhow – for his part Professor Dawkins is well rid of these people. Who would have wanted to have slipped through the modern censor’s net only to find yourself speaking to an audience of bed-wetting morons who have a problem sitting through any event where they have to listen rather than jabber? People who think they know the difference between ‘serious free speech’ (any speech they themselves might venture to utter) and ‘non-serious free speech’ or ‘abusive speech’ (speech uttered by the rest of the world – because they say so).

As I say, Professor Dawkins is well rid of his ignorant hosts. But does anyone else sense that the territory on which people are allowed to actually speak freely is narrowing these days?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/richard-dawkins-is-dragged-into-americas-t...

This is a famous example of what is happening on these boards, in Australian and Western  media outlets, workplaces, schools, universities.

Selectively standing up for Islam has become a dishonourable thing, like standing up for Nazi Germany in 1938 and denouncing those who didn't believe the 'peace in our time' bromides then.



.

freediver wrote on Jul 28^th, 2017 at 6:21pm:


To explain what should have been the bleeding obvious - I was referring to the protester himself/herself acting violently while calling for the beheading - not other people around them.

Oh thats right, I already clearly spelled that out:

someone being violent and aggressive and calling for blasphemers to be beheaded

First I want you to try and understand the exceedingly simple concept about context - namely that a person advocating execution while being violent and intimidating is a vastly different context to someone peacefully advocating for blasphemy to be made a capital offense.

Only then can we move on to why one might be considered incitement to violence, and the other might not.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 29^th, 2017 at 9:11am:

They are both agitating for killing people for what they think.

Frank wrote on Jul 29^th, 2017 at 9:36am:


Correct. Distasteful yes, but should that be a crime?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 29^th, 2017 at 9:42am:

No, but nor should the criticism of the ideological basis of their beliefs, in these cases Islam. They should not be allowed to bring legal cases against people who criticise their Islamic beliefs. But they are allowed and that is completely wrong. Laughing at koranic passages in a church resulted in conviction in victoria.