"Long told police the attacks were not racially motivated and were instead related to his “sex addiction”
A long stay in a federal prison should make sex something he’s keen to avoid. Let’s hope his stay helps him understand what it’s like to be victimised.
Ahhh - preference choice; situations or circumstances (outside influences or conditions); body “limitations” (allergies) and things we’ve grown accustomed too…
One can accept their limits in body, environment, thinking…
OR
there are ways of “pushing” the boundaries of limitations, which often lead to breaking the boundary (within reason).
I would not equate (nor am I suggesting you are equating, this is for clarity) someone with a peanut allergy, limited in “free will/choice” to attempt to “overcome” a bodily restriction to their “freedom of choice or free will”.
I accepted, and perhaps it’s my body that taught me, that all “freedoms” are limited. Most are limited for my well-being, others are non-consequencial, few are annoying and with some time may be overcome, and then I’m very well aware that I want to catch the “dangerous” ones early… or at the very least, monitor it like a hawk.
For myself, extremist/propaganda is like cancer (call it skin cancer). My body is riddled with “beauty marks”. From freckles, harmless moles, scars to pimples. A new “beauty Mark” pops up? Starts getting crusty and discoloured or weird shaped??? YOU bet I want “checked”. Should it be benign, fuck the little ugly bugger can stay. BUT if it’s malignant-(removal of it and any associated spread of cancer) that fucker needs to be caught early.
Out of curiousity - how fun has it been moving through so many lies that societal groups engage in? From religious indoctrination to conspiracy (eg. flat earth) to historic and financial and political and elitist/royal.
How many adults do you know that really move through the fairytales we’re exposed to and fed since birth?
So much propaganda and hatred are based on fairytales feeding “victimhood and powerlessness - fear and hatred” (extreme) …how much exposure should be tolerated publicly?
This type of worldview, how beneficial is it to the young within our society - the ones learning and more vulnerable/manipulated by these types of recruitments (most likely already indoctrinated with theist views and invisible sky daddy telling them what to think)…
I guess, for myself, it’s difficult enough to have most theists rethink positions they take on “morals, evolution, last-day/end of world scenarios, life after death, etc” and question (evaluate and raise their evidence standards)…
AND they are mostly the ones taught “love your neighbor” (common to most religions).
The “fear factor” is just as addictive as feel good… just much easier to “get the fix” (fear porn).
BTW - free speech is alive and well. We are constantly surrounded by it. I wouldn’t stop it. I confront those with whom I share this “world” BUT there is a difference between this
Actions led to this…
He was previously denied a VISA, but (as far as I can find) NEVER incarcerated because of his “speech”.
Him and his organization are “limited” as are (newly) a dozen other organizations (including Muslim).
I like the post you pasted… 
Black VS White: Two identifiable categories whose behaviors we can monitor, measure and do something about.
Man VS woman
Again, two identifiable categories that are easily identifiable. We can in fact categorize, generalize and do something about.
LGBT - Okay we have several categories here based on sexual preference. Not as easily identifiable, probably due to the social stigma attached to many of the categories. Still, those who openly identify are easy to find, easy to find concerns, easy to identify as a self reported group.
Good VS Evil - Amorphous Bullshit about which no one has any sort of clear definition. Our little Christian sect is good and yours is bad. There isn’t a fucking thing agreed upon in this little good vs evil bullshit division. Draw your line firm in the sand? If the Christians did that, the protestants would be killing the Catholics… wait a minute… they already tried that didn’t they? Mormons and JW would be running for cover. All the religious West would be attacking Islam… Ummmm… oh… never mind…
Good vs Evil is the stupidest division any moron could ever possibly think of.
I liked the whole “purge” thingy.
An election was held…folks voted in, some new & some experienced. There are term limits.
The “balance of power” has shifted.
BUT “wouldn’t it be nice” to just purge them and run this country right!
Calgary - past weekend…
No need to worry… hateful expression is alive and well for those who wish.
No one was charged under our “Hate Speech” laws, nor ticketed …
Some Canadians should just move to the USA (as far as I can recall Canada never had a Confederate flag, nor (aside from talk) got to vote in the US election, etc etc) and the Proud Boys can gather legally.
I starting to love anti hate speech laws . I think there should be punishments for those who those do hate speech.
OK. Define hate speech.
In that case, I refer you to the spiffy US series ‘Designated Survivor’ ,starring Kiefer Sutherland. (I season)
He plays , a junior secretary, Wildlife I think. He is the ‘designated survivor’ while the whole Congress and Senate sit together. There is a bomb with massive explosion and they are all killed. Kiefer is now president.
There’s another series (one season) called ‘Commander In Chief’ with Geena Davis. She is vice prez, he dies she becomes prez (25th Amendment)-------
Anyway, purging the lot would make no long term difference. Generally speaking, it is my observation that politics seldom attracts the best and brightest. So most of 'em are easily replaced.
The proof of that pudding was seen with Donald Trump as prez together with the venal immorality or far too many elected republicans.
I have no illusions. There is no doubt in my mind that many Democrats would act the same way if the situation were reversed.
Yet another reason for my belief that Aussies tend to have a healthy contempt for professional politicians.
“abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation” Google dictionary .
So who decides whether speech is hateful? Not the Google Dictionary, I hope.
Adherents of some religions regard any criticism of their holy books or prophets as hate speech. Some people conflate criticism of an ideology or religion with hatred toward people who believe in those things. Where do we draw the line?
When it indicates harm such as these tweets .Here is tweets that targets the Jews as group .Neo nazis is very violent and they love to spread hatred and violence through hate speeches.
Just so.
Yet again, for Daniel this time, I post a pertinent video with Rowan Atkinson, Ricky Gervais and Stephen Fry.
In an earlier post I said that speech inciting violence should be banned.
Your response was that we all have free will.
My response is; ‘nonsense’ . Free will is an unfalsifiable metaphysical claim. Banning speech inciting violence is imo, simple and concrete.
I also make distinction between freedom and licence. Whereas (imo) it’s perfectly Ok to say X is a cunt, it’s not OK to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre.
This was the only one that was the “yell “FIRE!”” (And exterminate the rats 
)
One could argue in the case of yelling “FIRE!” - if people stampeded to get out, or left quietly but caused the theatre a loss in revenue and the fire dept lost time (and potentially took them away when a real fire broke out somewhere, etc) - that those who LISTENED didn’t rely on other senses (eg. smell of smoke, fire alarms, sight of flames, etc) and are responsible for “falling for the joke”.
The license (I agree) of using speech in such a manner is harmful to society, and examples to kill may result in that exact thing…especially when there has been a feeding of belief about the “world” and “those people” and “shoulds”.
@Daniel2 our standard (AR) is a group’s personal set of rules that members here voluntarily adhere to. Individuals do this all the time, set boundaries for friendships and interactions.
These “rules of conduct” are for the well-being of members, yet it does not remove personal expression.
Also, for myself “Hate Speech” is a legal term that has to meet a high level of harmful incitement.
other things… words like bigot, misogyny & misandrist- etc. DEFINE quite nicely the type of misguided, hatred towards others that may not land a person in jail. NOR should it!!!
Also when thinking about hate “speech” - perhaps think of “hateful expression”. Expressing oneself is a freedom I defend whether I agree or disagree. I have “expressed myself” in a way that the one receiving it may consider it “hate” (usually it’s ridicule BUT in text 
it’s hard to tell how messages are received).
Other words for hate are distain, loath, despise - all have nuances of difference - imagine “legally outlawing distain”…
Cranks is from a country that has a sloppy Act and because it’s so slllooooppppyyyy, I agree with his understanding of “hate speech” (as defined in Australia) and would oppose it there.
Here (in my country) I am comfortable with the term “hate speech” because of how high the standard for “hate speech” is in reality, and the way it is defined…(there is a legal boundary: Under section 319(1), everyone who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offence punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment, or of a summary conviction offence.)
Other forms of “expression/speech” (not casual meaning/use) that are not free in Canada under law - Perjury, counselling suicide, and creating child pornography are all forms of expression, but they have been limited through designation in the federal Criminal Code as criminal offences.
Again, these have to be understood in context, and each one of them have been, as Cranks stated, discussed to death. BUT they should be discussed continuously as language usage and generations emerge and societal changes happen.
@boomer47 There was an episode of the show “The West Wing”, which also conered the 25th Amendment. It is one of my favorite episodes of the series.
Me too.
‘The West Wing’ is such a lovely exercise in leftist fantasy. (I have the box set)
In that same episode Josh is worried the Republicans will start legislating. As he is leaving, his opposite number finishes with something like “…People who think that have a craven way of looking at politics”
Apart from being a fatuous ad hominem, Josh was absolutely right to worry imo–What was the alternative? To trust the cunts?
Me? I’m a pluralist who has an innate distrust of all professional politicians.
I’ve experienced this many times. In fact I’ve been in online discussions where in the same thread I’ve been called an intolerant bigoted racist for criticising a religious ideology, then been called a leftie liberal for defending against blanket criticisms of all adherents of that religion.
Bigotry doesn’t involve one particular position, only a particularly intolerant mindset.
Belgium… a judge determined that “shunning” (disfellowshipping) is a “hate crime”. NOW to be clear, the judge 
said any organization or person has the freedom of association and can determine if a person is no longer a “member” BUT it’s the hatred in action of the organization to ex-members that the court is fining. An attitude all members are required to act on (lest they receive that same attitude).
The association propagates the exclusion policy to its local faith communities and thereby jeopardizes many pillars of our fundamental rights. At no point did the religious community consider the very adverse consequences for the victims. It is the job of the judiciary to stop such practices. Religious rules are not above the law in our society.
Hahahaha!!! The “organization” encourages jail for standing faithful to Jehovah and death (no blood policy) - I wonder if they’re willing to pay fines for their “biblical interpretation”? Nah - I see “new light” on the horizon on the treatment of ex-members.
