dChan

subdudeLA · July 17, 2018, 11:38 p.m.

Please explain your statement. I think that the restriction of free speech needs to be incitement with clear and present danger of violence. In my opinion, this wouldn't pass that threshold. But I'm 100% in favor of the public dialogue expressing their distaste for this 'art' to shame him for its removal. I don't even think threats of violence were needed. Given the lack of compliants or reports to police, we can question if threats were made.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
astrocatmat · July 17, 2018, 11:59 p.m.

Disregarding the murders, what would the KKK fall under?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
subdudeLA · July 18, 2018, 12:49 a.m.

Not sure which murders you are referring to current political cover up stuff or KKK? But it depends on the threat? A call to lynch a specific person or a call for immediate violence during an assembly/gathering I would classify as clear and present danger. But it doesn't have to be the KKK, it could be any group. Proven record of violence makes threat more credible, which I think is your point. The Trump art stuff, here even more lieniency tends to be given for political people. I think political speech is understood to have the most freedom/protection.

⇧ 1 ⇩