FHRITP: That's apparently a thing.

May 18, 2015

So you prefer vigilante justice over rule of law.

It would be more fun, but it would only be for things I don't like, and that doesn't seem fair. Remember, I said I would like to. Wouldn't you? Doesn't mean we're going to.

As for the "over rule of law" bit, I don't agree there should be a law.

Can you tell me why there should be a law pertaining to this specific offense? How would you reconcile your views towards people who find something offensive that you do not?

Wilber · May 18, 2015

It would be more fun, but it would only be for things I don't like, and that doesn't seem fair. Remember, I said I would like to. Wouldn't you? Doesn't mean we're going to.

As for the "over rule of law" bit, I don't agree there should be a law.

Can you tell me why there should be a law pertaining to this specific offense? How would you reconcile your views towards people who find something offensive that you do not?

You don't think the threat of losing a job doesn't curb free speech?

msj · May 18, 2015

Maybe it does but so what?

It's not like they killed him for it.

Free speech does have consequences.

The government, however, has no business in this unless it can be demonstrated that the douchebag was trying to incite violence.

Wilber · May 18, 2015

Maybe it does but so what?

It's not like they killed him for it.

Free speech does have consequences.

The government, however, has no business in this unless it can be demonstrated that the douchebag was trying to incite violence.

So you think enforcement should be wild west? It's not like he got a simple fine either. Which would you rather have? It wouldn't have to be a criminal offence.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Wilber

Smallc · May 18, 2015

So you think enforcement should be wild west? It's not like he got a simple fine either. Which would you rather have?

So you think that people should be censored now? Is that where you're going with this? Do we need official monitors to stop the offensiveness in its tracks?

Wilber · May 18, 2015

So you think that people should be censored now? Is that where you're going with this? Do we need official monitors to stop the offensiveness in its tracks?

No, I'm asking you how they should be censored because they will be, one way or another.

Smallc · May 18, 2015

No, I'm asking you how they should be censored because they will be, one way or another.

Not by the government - unless of course we're talking about a simple harassment charge (it would depend entirely on the circumstances) or possibly a sexual harassment charge in some cases.

Wilber · May 18, 2015

Not by the government - unless of course we're talking about a simple harassment charge (it would depend entirely on the circumstances) or possibly a sexual harassment charge in some cases.

So you think open ended vigilante justice is preferable to laws and penalties that everyone understands.

Bonam · May 18, 2015

So you think open ended vigilante justice is preferable to laws and penalties that everyone understands.

Laws and penalties for just saying something? No thanks.

Wilber · May 18, 2015

Laws and penalties for just saying something? No thanks.

We already have it in our hate speech laws.

Smallc · May 18, 2015

We already have it in our hate speech laws.

Which is bad enough.

Wilber · May 18, 2015

Which is bad enough.

Maybe but don't you think yelling FHRITP at a stranger is advocating an act of violence?

Edited May 18, 2015 by Wilber

Smallc · May 18, 2015

Maybe but don't you think yelling FHRITP at a stranger is advocating an act of violence?

No, because I know the original source. It was a fake news prank video series on youtube. Now people are trying to be cool and get famous for a minute by copying it.

msj · May 18, 2015

So you think enforcement should be wild west? It's not like he got a simple fine either. Which would you rather have? It wouldn't have to be a criminal offence.

As an employer I would have no problem firing one of my staff if that person did something as painfully stupid as this guy.

That is a right any employer has no matter anyway. The question is how much severance needs to be paid (and/or legal costs).

The state, however, should stay out of it unless there is proof of incitement of violence.

I don't like the state getting involved in something as petty as this.

Wilber · May 18, 2015

No, because I know the original source. It was a fake news prank video series on youtube. Now people are trying to be cool and get famous for a minute by copying it.

So that makes it OK. How about SHOOT HER RIGHT IN THE FACE? Would that do it for you?

msj · May 18, 2015

Maybe but don't you think yelling FHRITP at a stranger is advocating an act of violence?

No.

Perhaps under different context but in this instance it is clearly no.

bush_cheney2004 · May 18, 2015

Maybe but don't you think yelling FHRITP at a stranger is advocating an act of violence?

Sure...just like yelling "Death to America !!"

Wilber · May 18, 2015

No.

Perhaps under different context but in this instance it is clearly no.

What other context? When boys aren't just being boys?

cybercoma · May 18, 2015

How could anyone ever have a different opinion?

I'm understanding of reasonable dissenting opinions, not wild conjecture.

cybercoma · May 18, 2015

So that makes it OK. How about SHOOT HER RIGHT IN THE FACE? Would that do it for you?

But if they're just kidding, it's ok. :rolleyes:

msj · May 18, 2015

If the context is making it out to be a clear and present threat to her then that would change things.

To say "I want to f you right in the pussy" would fall under harassment and I would understand the state getting involved. That's a direct threat.

Wilber · May 18, 2015

But if they're just kidding, it's ok.

Well, I'm wondering whether those on the receiving end who don't know the origin of this, know (or care) what the origin is, or know (or care) that smallc knows.

Bonam · May 18, 2015

So that makes it OK. How about SHOOT HER RIGHT IN THE FACE? Would that do it for you?

If, given the context, it is likely that someone would actually be incited to cause someone else physical harm, then there is a case to be made for incitement.

If it is merely an offensive statement with no reason to expect that someone would be incited to commit violence, then no.

If a crazy guy on the street corner is ranting about killing some group of people, he'll get ignored until a police officer comes by and tells him to move along. If a supremacist group is preaching to their members to kill some group of people, they are likely to (rightfully) get into a lot of trouble. The difference is the likelihood of someone taking what is being said to heart and acting on it.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Bonam

cybercoma · May 18, 2015

If the context is making it out to be a clear and present threat to her then that would change things.

To say "I want to f you right in the pussy" would fall under harassment and I would understand the state getting involved. That's a direct threat.

This is really splitting hairs and being pedantic about the words said.

cybercoma · May 18, 2015

If, given the context, it is likely that someone would actually be incited to cause someone else physical harm, then there is a case to be made for incitement.

If it is merely an offensive statement with no reason to expect that someone would be incited to commit violence, then no.

If a crazy guy on the street corner is ranting about killing some group of people, he'll get ignored until a police officer comes by and tells him to move along. If a supremacist group is preaching to their members to kill some group of people, they are likely to (rightfully) get into a lot of trouble. The difference is the likelihood of someone taking what is being said to heart and acting on it.

The guy in the OP and the guys in most of these cases (I've yet to see a woman shout FHRITP at a reporter) aren't ranting crazies though. They're typically college aged guys who are not in any way suffering from any sort of mental illness or delusions.