it depends. There are open threats and Stochastic terrorism . It depends how it is being used and the secondary problem is the idea of the first amendment allows for both violent and hateful speech. So it depends on the specific way it is used. Is it a direct threat or indirect.
it is war for sure which is why I have no problem saying the same hateful things back to these fucks. I know how they play the game the only advantage they have is that the social media sites protect their speech while if we engaged as we should in the same manner we get banned. All speech should be allowed even the hateful its only a problem when one side is allowed to do it and the other is not.
TIME TRAVEL IS FUN
timmy is trying to figure this out and still is chalking it up to coincidence.
well you can purposefully hate and the deciding factor is can it really incite? Incitement usually has a time sense implied especially when it comes to threats, also the nature of the threat is it direct or indirect. Comedy sadly can be used as a buffer for this language. So you are not really wrong just limited in your full definition of what speech is allowed. The problem you are seeing is the broad nature of this language. Take for instance the idea of "Punching a Nazi" is that incitement, a direction, a catchphrase. I it is not saying a direct threat, but if you have enough people in line so you say punch a nazi, then you say joe is a nazi, then it makes sense to punch joe. Its not a direct line of causality necessarily.
they are the heroes in the Rebellion against the Empire. They think they are in a vidya game. they are willing to die as martyrs for the cause.
correct.
missing the point, but of course he is normie slop, but the fact that he is talking about this is going to help more than he realizes. He dunks on Q also quite often, but he is considered sane by many normies. The fact he is talking about this type of stuff and showing it even while not understanding it means there is a containment breech of information happening.
thanks for your faggot opinion one post.
nope still wrong. It does and you are citing that fire shit just shows how wrong you are. Before you speak again look up Brandenburg V OHIO . You also have to determine and define incitement which this case does. There also has to be a imminent act. IT does protect it to an extent but it is vague on purpose in order to protect the rights of others. Of course they know what they are doing, so do I. In minecraft.
it has been tested. The problem is if you start pushing this shit and crying about it too much you are going to create a society that has even more censorship than it already does.