Why this is important:
Stew Peters is a far-right virulently anti-LGBTQ bigot who regularly uses his nightly “The Stew Peters Show” program, speeches, and social media accounts to promote white nationalists and antisemites and to spread wild conspiracy theories, bigotry, and calls for violence. Despite his bigoted views and unhinged rhetoric, Peters regularly manages to get Republican leaders, elected officials, and candidates for office to appear on his program. In addition, Peters has participated in ReAwaken America events alongside various Trump insiders and members of the Trump family.
I thought advocating the violent overthrow of the government was illegal? I have questions. It floors me when one side refuses to use the existing mechanisms to combat the illegality of the other as if it would be ill-mannered of them to quash murderous rhetoric.
They say it takes two sides to fight, and that’s true. You have to cooperate with someone looking for a fight. But you also have to cooperate with someone trying to walk all over you. Fascism must be killed in the crib. We’ve seen what happens when you don’t.
There is a war happening right now over the soul and future of America and one side has no idea it’s even fighting. I love this country too much to see it fall to the wrong side of history. But things are looking bleak.
It really depends how you say it. You can say things in such a way where you’re covered under free speech. For example
Telling a mob to “go over there and attack all the dirty [racial group] to cleanse our city” is 100% incitement and you will go to jail, regardless of who you are
But going onto your podcast and saying “man, I really think the best thing for our society would be to get rid of all the dirty [racial group] so we can be cleansed” is protected under free speech
It really depends on what the man who’s the topic of the OP said, to determine whether he said something illegal or not.
Keep in mind they tried to fight fascism in Germany too. They sent Hitler to jail. Eventually he got broken out and he became dictator shortly after. I think ultimately speech and hatred is not the problem - it’s the symptom. As long as we have people suffering under an economic system that doesn’t provide for all their basic needs, we leave the door open for people like Trump or Prager to sneak in and offer a solution.
Can censor, arrest, and deplatform all you want, won’t make a difference.
I’m very, very much not convinced that last part is true.
Right? Since when have we seen laws enforced for the rich?
When they screw over richer people.
But only then, and only sometimes still.
I suppose I just don’t appreciate the nuance between “go do evil“ and “I think people should go do evil“.
It got even narrower in [im terrible with case names]
The Supreme Court basically said unless there is imminent harm, it is free speech. Which is nuts when stochastic terrorism is rampant.
At least in the US, speech is a protected right. So protected that it’s actually the first part of the bill of rights. So naturally, any limitations on speech must be limited. This changes from place to place. For example in Europe you don’t have such strong speech protections so something like showing a Nazi flag can get you years in prison.
Having said that, I think speech is one of the very few things that the US actually does better than Europe. While it may allow for people to say obscene hateful things, I believe it is dangerous to give the government the power to interpret what is valid and non-valid speech. Right now the government, while having many problems, is more or less reasonable. It doesn’t take much imagination, however, to envision a future where a couple radical strongmen politicians (or even just one) fundamentally changes the nature of the federal government to a point where any dissent can be considered “hateful”
I say “white families have 10x higher net worth on average than black families” and all of a sudden it’s a hateful statement because some government official claims I’m trying to guilt all white people. I go to jail or otherwise get censored.
How come Alex Jones was not allowed to state that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged?
It wasn’t a criminal charge so he never was at risk of going to jail. He got sued for defamation.
Essentially if he had said “I think sandy hook was a hoax” he would have been fine. I think the judge also wanted to make an example out of him, given the nature of his statements.
Thanks for explaining
He was allowed to say that. It just turned out there were financial consequences for doing so.
Right. He could still say it. No one is stopping him. Speech is free, but it is not free from consequences.
deleted by creator
My worry is that if we send trump to jail for any one of his felonies, he will get out somehow and lead a coup.
What’s the alternative? Saying that politicians are free to rig an election, then stage a coup, and if it doesn’t work you just get to walk away?
Not prosecuting Nixon was the biggest mistake this country made (hyperbole), and you can draw a straight line from that to where we are now.
The hard part is that it has to be SPECIFIC and CLEARLY TARGETED, and modern fascists are generally very very careful to not clear either bar on a public forum. You can’t say “well they clearly mean Jews when they use the term globalist or banker or elite”, that’s not clearly targeted nor specific.
deleted by creator