Florida Night Club Shooting - at least 20 dead - impact on US elections?

Advocating mass killing is not protected speech -- even within the spectrum of hate groups, it's crossing a line. Even David Duke doesn't advocate killing anyone (at least not publically to my knowledge). If you talk to God you might be naive, maybe kooky, or at least desperate for much-needed mercy from life's many difficulties. But if God is talking to you and telling you to kill gay people, you need medication and 24 hour supervision. I would think that would work better and cost less than confiscating rifles or yet another war in the Middle East.

The law has no reason to be tolerant of murderous intolerance. Neither do we.

You would be better off engaging people that falsely believe defending the rights of psychotic religious people to exploit the credulous to commit mass murder makes them civil libertarians.

 

According to CNN, the FBI questioned him in 2013 and 2014 and deemed him not a threat. They were wrong.

 

I think some anti-psychotic medication and a 72 hour observation in a mental ward at the minimum.

 

Luckily caught this guy


Police: Man arrested in California had guns, explosives

 

Unless the common threads are their religion, ethnicity and geopolitical interpretations thereof, as well as their sense of exclusion: which may or may not be exacerbated by immigrant status.

 

I'll just add that there was a shooting in 2009 in Tel Aviv at a place that counselled LBGT teens. Because of a gag order, it's still unclear what the motivation was, but the perpetrators were from Bnei Brak, an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood. Same god, same kind of crazy, different dead people.

 

Can you substantiate liberals hating Christians and defending Radical Islam? Because that's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I think everyone is concerned about Islamic fundamentalism. The question that no one addresses is how to deal with it.

I think we need to put more pressure on countries that repress their own people such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to rein in fanatical groups and change practices. It's not an easy thing to do.

We also need to really find better ways to prevent people from being radicalized by terrorist groups like ISIS. The pattern we are seeing in these killings is radicalization of an individual through contact with terrorist groups and propaganda. It is way too easy to connect to radical content on the internet and terrorist recruiters on social media.

And yes, gun control is important as well - it's not going to stop this, but it will limit the damage - why on earth can anyone buy a weapon capable of killing 50 people and hitting 50 more???? Why is that legal? Assault rifles being legal to purchase doesn't make any sense. And if the FBI had been pinged that this cat was buying an assault weapon and he was putting on a waiting list - then that might have potentially made a big difference.

 

Are you implying that Omar Mateen is not an American?

 

Were they wrong? Or did something happen since 2014 to make him a threat?A lot can change in 2 years.

We can monitor whole communities, interview thousands, and even prevent some attacks. But there is no 100% reliable way to screen out all violent crimes or mass shootings before they happen.

 

Baptist preacher reminds us that Leviticus says gay people should be killed anyway because they are all pedophiles, but the shooting in Orlando was wrong because culling America's gay population should really be the government's responsibility. Enjoy.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EUOBFjRGvPI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Actually in a lot of instances, that's not true. I spelled it out earlier exactly what was considered protected free speech and what isn't. Merely advocating for the killing of certain groups is protected free speech unless there it is inciting imminent lawless action. Most of the time people simply giving speeches suggesting that some groups should be killed doesn't pass the Brandenburg test so it's considered protected free speech because the lawless act isn't imminent and in some cases it's not even likely....it has to be both in order to have anything you can hold against them.

 

I think any kind of speech that preaches or approves of violence against another group of citizens should be considered sedition. This includes using social media, issuing death threats, any association or intentional contact with terrorist groups, and preaching hate against a group.

There are sedition laws on the books, but clearly there is a need for some review given what goes on in social media particularly.

 

First, this test would not have stopped this series of murders. The FBI investigated this dude, but he came out clean years ago.

You're sadly wrong about the protected speech part. Here's a good primer.

http://prospect.org/article/violent-speech-right

This is why, when after the Oklahoma bombings, talk show host Gordon Liddy managed to explain how to shoot agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms: "Head shots, head shots... Kill the sons of b****es." Later he said, "Shoot twice to the belly and if that does not work, shoot to the groin area."

He was not imprisoned.

In fact, his show was never taken off the air!

You can agree that this might be f**ked up, but um, it kinda puts a lie to the whole "mass murder" (of government agents no less!) as speech isn't protected.

Now just because it is protected now and the law is the way it is doesn't mean the law can't be changed, but you have to admit this is a change first before you decide how best to implement it, as it were. American political discourse is filled with explicit threats to kill people if you listen carefully.

Neither does it warrant imprisonment of everything it doesn't tolerate. Surveillance for specific threats is pretty much a widely accepted policy for law enforcement agencies or should be. When you and DD talk imprisonment and killing for speech, this is where I disagree.

I don't care what labels my beliefs make me, and I like trolling people that don't believe in what I believe in. I PASS ON YOUR PROPOSAL SIR

 

I suspect they missed something. But again, we as a society are way too tolerant of anti-social ideas and activities [child abuse, abuse against women, discrimination of minorities] that are protected as religious belief.

 

A very moving image that is well worth repeating.

 

Yes there are laws on the books, but due to a SCOTUS ruling in 1969 most of them are worthless due to what has been ruled protected speech. There's really not anything that can be done about that without another SCOTUS case or a constitutional amendment.

 

The abuses by Scientology alone should be enough to reexamine the 1st amendment protection provided especially to religion.

 

I can name you quite a few preachers who think that way and have expressed it publicly without any consequence.

Disgusting ideas.

This really doesn't have to do with religion though, tbh, America has always had a higher standard for protected speech ever since Brandenburg v. Ohio, which sadly, this falls under.

I'm perfectly fine with fighting to interpret the law differently and making sure these kind of threats don't become incitement (especially because advocating for mass murder isn't particularly productive one way or another), but that's a discussion America has had in the courts before, and will have to do again. There is no real recourse under current laws. And I've seen the baby thrown out with the bathwater before when it comes to overturning civil liberties for temporary security...

but i forgot, I'm only faking civil libertarianism for the extra school credit

 

Yes, and that is the kind of thing that should be actionable. We need some new international laws against inciting hatred and violence.

Just showing another idiot preaching violence does not absolve the other idiots doing the same.

DD