Isn't that more justified than cameras everywhere? It is written down to be read, isn't it?
What do you mean?
I'm not against it being read, obviously. I'm talkign about police taking ACTION against people for writing insults on the internet
There are varying degrees of accountability tho. There are people, normal-enough computer-sitting people like-you-and-me, who spend their time conciously brewing violence through writing. They are being concious and clever in their manipulation, and their intention is to cause violence to happen. "Fjordman" is a very good example, as his writings included very conciously put "suggestions" to cause violence - even rushing the reader, creating tension - and famously, he was the one Breivik credited the most for being a source of inspiration.
"Fjordman" was of course relieved of all guilt, since speech is free - but obviously, normal common sense suggests that he should have shared at least a portion of the accountability. One can't just write and say
exactly what comes to mind. Humans are very creative, and sometimes very clever as well, and manipulation is a real thing. Many a genocide has come from free speech. Many a murder has been verbally ordered.
I don't know about the twitter example in particular, and I'm all for free speech - but with a certain restriction. When the intention becomes clear, and the attempt to actually manipulate and create violence is there, then there should be some sort of consequence.
You keep posting links to that newspaper which keeps making people more and more bigoted. For now they are a source of eyerolls and snickers, but what if they decide to get brutal? They would allready have hundreds of thousands of loyal followers, or more? The Rwandan genocide was spurred by, amongst other, an italian in a radio channel - and we all know, we are no better than rwandans, when it comes down to it. We are no better than germans either
<------- the guests who keep visiting this forum, yet somehow they don't register an account.
Poll