[ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor

painlord2k at libero.it painlord2k at libero.it
Tue Apr 28 13:31:03 UTC 2009

Il 28/04/2009 11.52, Stefano Vaj ha scritto:

> OTOH, what exactly is the connection between Holmes reasoning on the
> punishment of false alarms and a possible claim, e.g., that the
> Night of Saint Bartholomew never took place?

I'm not an expert, but Holmes was not reasoning but claiming that the 
drafted youngs would be sent to a slaughterhouse and other, and asked 
them to act.
Now, after googling about the verdict, I know what is a "clear and 
present danger" standard.


>> The question in every case is whether the words used are used in
>> such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear
>> and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils
>> that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a
>> question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many
>> things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to
>> its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men
>> fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any
>> constitutional right.

> A false alarm creates a rushing towards the exit that may
> pointlessly kill people.

It cause a "clear and present danger".

What danger could be caused by negating the Night of St. Bartholomew is 
the question. Not now, but in the time and place it is done. And what 
are the intentions of who that do it.

> Would the second scenario suggest that it is good to kill
> protestants and encourage people to do so? or that one should become
> a catholic, since Catholics would be allegedly innocent of the
> behaviour blamed on them? or prevent interested parties to contradict
> the theory, and the others to form an independent opinion by
> comparing the existing sources? :-/

It depend, as I understand, from the background.

Take the Holocaust deniers:
I have not a problem if historians debate in their papers their findings 
(or what they think they have found) about the numbers and the types of 
the victims of the Holocaust and how it happened. Nor if a newspaper 
report the news.
The problem is when the "findings" are used to disprove the right to the 
existence of Israel, that is right to kick the Jews in the sea, the 
existence of a world-wide Jews conspiracy aimed to dominate the world 
and justify attacks of Jews everywhere as a way to "defend themselves".

Then, in the US, the Schenck v. United States
the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

was overthrow by the Brandenburg v. Ohio

For the critics of the "Schenck v. United States" and Justice Holmes I 
want point out that the standard at the time was much less stringent, so 
people could be sentenced even without a "clear and present danger" but 
only for "Bad tendency" and it was a far more ambiguous standard where 
speech could be punished even in the absence of identifiable danger.

> Label, defamation, inducement, instigation and apology of crime are
> distinct crimes, which are already punished by independent
> provisions,

I'm not sure they are all punished in the US.
Is "apology of crime" a crime in the US?

> and I do believe that a community may live well enough by
> restricting prosecution, as far as speech is concerned, to those
> conducts.

I hope so.
But we must understand that the standard become more stringent as the 
individuals become less prone to act after inflammatory speeches and 
less violent (Flynn Effect? less youths around?).
What would happen if we import low IQ people, with a different morality, 
that regard violence as a normal way to address problems (from beating 
their wives and children to raping not enough covered meat (AKA kafir 
women) or rioting for an allegation of a flushed Quran). These people 
would be more prone to react at inflammatory speeches in a violent and 
unlawful way.

This is the reason used to justify, in the UK, the suppression of  the 
St-Georges-Day-parade and much more, so I don't see a reason to not 
apply the same restrictions to the inflammable people.

I think that with a fully implemented Second Amendment of the Bill of 
Rights there would not be so much need to restrict speech as there would 
be many less helpless potential victims of inflammatory speeches.

I would have not so many problems with an Imam advocating the raping of 
"uncovered meat" if all the "uncovered meat" had a Glock and ammos and 
the right to use them. Natural selection would take care of the problem.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list