You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. So the shooter in Tennessee was a right wing wacko.
Police: Man shot churchgoers over liberal views - Yahoo! News
Rwandan and Bosnian atrocities were fueled by hate radio too.
Yeah, I blame Rwanda on radio too. The Kings finishing in last, yep you guessed Nick Nickson is to blame.
__________________ I haven't crapped Obediah's pants since December 15th, 2007, stay away from the nachos at Champps. Tonga ate all of my mac and cheese, you bastard.
The United Nations tribunal in Arusha has convicted three former media executives of being key figures in the media campaign to incite ethnic Hutus to kill Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994.
Sweet now the next time I kill someone I can say the radio told me to do and I will have no responsibility for the crime.
People are responsible for their own actions, not what someone says on the radio.
__________________ I haven't crapped Obediah's pants since December 15th, 2007, stay away from the nachos at Champps. Tonga ate all of my mac and cheese, you bastard.
Sweet now the next time I kill someone I can say the radio told me to do and I will have no responsibility for the crime.
People are responsible for their own actions, not what someone says on the radio.
That is a pretty naive view of things. The hate media and the shooter both have responsibility. Not one or the other.
Sweet now the next time I kill someone I can say the radio told me to do and I will have no responsibility for the crime.
People are responsible for their own actions, not what someone says on the radio.
I'm big on personal responsibility too, but this is a gross oversimplification. Inciting and manipulating an angry and volatile herd is intentional. A crime of solicitation on a mass scale.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by gescom
actually i think it's both good and bad... where Crawford really sacrificed Kopitar to the benefit of Brown and O'Sullivan, Murray is sacrificing Frolov and O'Sullivan for the benefit of the two players this organization has hung their hat on.
the key would be how far Murray can go before Frolov loses patience and O'Sullivan goes into an emotional cocoon.
No. When you set a precedent like that, the fall out could be disasterous. Sure it sounds like a great idea, to keep intolerant people off of the radio, television, or any manner of media really. I'd love for extremists from all angles to be shut down, therefore lessening the amount of intolerance and hatred bled to the masses, most importantly our children. However, what happens when you allow the government to keep a religious nut off the radio is that you give them the authority to refuse access to anyone if they (the government) could consider it "hate radio". And when you give that kind of authority to the government, they can and usually will run rampant with it. Which would be in direct contradiction to the first ammendment of the United States Constitution. We're ALL in a constant battle with the government to keep our Constitutional rights, and there's no way we should ever actually ask them to take those rights away from us. Again, and on a FAR greater scale... the fall out would be devastating. We should ask only that they govern us, not control us. (At least anymore than they already do.)
__________________ Better than a sandwich and far more entertaining than bread.~kingsjohn/Obediah "You are out of your mind" ~Deeker "All reactionaries have is Conflict as a tool. Consensus is a foreign word." ~go
No. When you set a precedent like that, the fall out could be disasterous. Sure it sounds like a great idea, to keep intolerant people off of the radio, television, or any manner of media really. I'd love for extremists from all angles to be shut down, therefore lessening the amount of intolerance and hatred bled to the masses, most importantly our children. However, what happens when you allow the government to keep a religious nut off the radio is that you give them the authority to refuse access to anyone if they (the government) could consider it "hate radio". And when you give that kind of authority to the government, they can and usually will run rampant with it. Which would be in direct contradiction to the first ammendment of the United States Constitution. We're ALL in a constant battle with the government to keep our Constitutional rights, and there's no way we should ever actually ask them to take those rights away from us. Again, and on a FAR greater scale... the fall out would be devastating. We should ask only that they govern us, not control us. (At least anymore than they already do.)
I do agree with this, 100%. Banning is probably the worst thing to do. But if a "hate host" does something that amounts to a criminal act, then just prosecute the host.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by gescom
actually i think it's both good and bad... where Crawford really sacrificed Kopitar to the benefit of Brown and O'Sullivan, Murray is sacrificing Frolov and O'Sullivan for the benefit of the two players this organization has hung their hat on.
the key would be how far Murray can go before Frolov loses patience and O'Sullivan goes into an emotional cocoon.
I do agree with this, 100%. Banning is probably the worst thing to do. But if a "hate host" does something that amounts to a criminal act, then just prosecute the host.
I don't know if you do prosecute. Would that be similar to a kid who shot up his school saying that music or video made him do it? Sure there's a vast difference between the mind of a teenager, and the mind of an adult, but I think when anyone commits and act like this, we're not dealing with someone who has a full deck.
I think it has to stay at a level of personal responsibility of action. I'm not saying it's out of the question, and by all means, if a hate host crosses the line into a criminal act per the law as it stands now, then by all means... go after him. But to take legal action against someone for spewing hate is crossing a line constitutionally, and I just don't think that's the path for us to travel as a nation.
__________________ Better than a sandwich and far more entertaining than bread.~kingsjohn/Obediah "You are out of your mind" ~Deeker "All reactionaries have is Conflict as a tool. Consensus is a foreign word." ~go
I don't know if you do prosecute. Would that be similar to a kid who shot up his school saying that music or video made him do it? Sure there's a vast difference between the mind of a teenager, and the mind of an adult, but I think when anyone commits and act like this, we're not dealing with someone who has a full deck.
I think it has to stay at a level of personal responsibility of action. I'm not saying it's out of the question, and by all means, if a hate host crosses the line into a criminal act per the law as it stands now, then by all means... go after him.
Criminal law has very specific requirements. You need intent (or some sort of conduct where intent is imputed) and an act. So the video game analogy doesn't really work. And I'm not proposing anything more than the bolded portion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal P.I.T.A.
But to take legal action against someone for spewing hate is crossing a line constitutionally, and I just don't think that's the path for us to travel as a nation.
Not really, there are numerous categories of speech that does not enjoy full constitutional protection, and solicitation of a criminal act is one of those instances.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by gescom
actually i think it's both good and bad... where Crawford really sacrificed Kopitar to the benefit of Brown and O'Sullivan, Murray is sacrificing Frolov and O'Sullivan for the benefit of the two players this organization has hung their hat on.
the key would be how far Murray can go before Frolov loses patience and O'Sullivan goes into an emotional cocoon.
I don't know if you do prosecute. Would that be similar to a kid who shot up his school saying that music or video made him do it? Sure there's a vast difference between the mind of a teenager, and the mind of an adult, but I think when anyone commits and act like this, we're not dealing with someone who has a full deck.
I think it has to stay at a level of personal responsibility of action. I'm not saying it's out of the question, and by all means, if a hate host crosses the line into a criminal act per the law as it stands now, then by all means... go after him. But to take legal action against someone for spewing hate is crossing a line constitutionally, and I just don't think that's the path for us to travel as a nation.
RP is right as rain.
The one thing that could be done is to go BACK to really treating broadcast licenses as a lease of the publically owned resource of the airwaves. On radio that could mean "equal time" for a variety of opinions, and that would put an end to the business/advertising plans based on spewing full time crap from any one position.
__________________
"For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." Thomas DeQuincey, 1700's
Criminal law has very specific requirements. You need intent (or some sort of conduct where intent is imputed) and an act. So the video game analogy doesn't really work. And I'm not proposing anything more than the bolded portion.
Not really, there are numerous categories of speech that does not enjoy full constitutional protection, and solicitation of a criminal act is one of those instances.
Well really, I'm saying the same thing you are, just not quite as eloquently. I purely meant that some one screaming "I hate people" on the radio, to me did not constitute a crime. But by, as you put it, soliciting criminal acts" they should by all means be prosecuted.
__________________ Better than a sandwich and far more entertaining than bread.~kingsjohn/Obediah "You are out of your mind" ~Deeker "All reactionaries have is Conflict as a tool. Consensus is a foreign word." ~go
Hate Radio 
homersimps
