On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 10:05:19 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Unless you live in a digital cave, you will not have missed the news of
a famous American influencer (ex gaming streamer, LOL!) who,
paraphrasing, has been preaching this theorem for the last few months:
1) Those who support Trump/Musk/Israel are Nazis (alternatively he says Fascists and/or Zionists);
2) This country (USA) used to kill Nazis;
3) It's our moral imperative, as Americans, to kill Nazis, etc.
And then he makes a list of what in his mind are
Nazis/Fascists/Zionists.
I'm not very well versed in American law but, as it stands and as long
he personally doesn't kill or participates in the planning of killing
anyone, he can say that without major legal consequences, apart from
being banned from X.
What would happen to him if he was a UK resident?
With the caveat that looking for consistency in any legal system is a
waste of time, the US has the concept of the 1st amendment. This means in theory you can't pass laws that prevent people from expressing themselves.
However there is also the doctrine of shouting "fire !" in a crowded
theater. The idea being that if your expression can be demonstrated to
have caused harm you are still liable.
This does make sense to a degree because requiring people are held
accountable for their speech is not the same as proactively preventing
them from speaking.
The UK has no similar concept, with the idea of "inalienable rights"
being (ironically) alien. The UK also has a complex maze of legal avenues
in place to trip up anyone who feels like standing on a soapbox.
Personally I am a little wary of the idea that peoples actions can be
absolved by other peoples speech. An issue that was a hot topic during
last years rioting.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)