Quote (Handcuffs @ 2 Feb 2021 00:31)

I don't agree with that though. The exchange of money is no longer merely speech. It's a material exchange under an agreement for action and creates conditional behavior that is no longer individual, but conspiratorial.

Quote (Handcuffs @ Feb 2 2021 03:31am)

I don't agree with that though. The exchange of money is no longer merely speech. It's a material exchange under an agreement for action and creates conditional behavior that is no longer individual, but conspiratorial.

Quote (Kayeto @ Feb 2 2021 02:00am)

Sue says to John "I'll give you $20k to murder my husband". John murders Sue's husband, but is caught in the act and arrested before any money changes hands.

By your estimation, Sue is not guilty of the crime "conspiracy to commit murder" because the only thing she did was speak?

Quote (Handcuffs @ Feb 2 2021 02:05am)

That is murder conspiracy.

Quote (Kayeto @ Feb 2 2021 12:35am)

well, no one in any of the above situations exchanged any money so that doesn't factor in here. You're just throwing that in that to confuse the issue. It's been clear from the beginning, the only thing that anyone did is talk.

post #17:

your response:

You agree that even though Sue did nothing but talk, she committed a crime.

Quote (Kayeto @ 2 Feb 2021 00:35)

You agree that even though Sue did nothing but talk, she committed a crime.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 2 2021 03:38am)

There was still a verbal contractual agreement. I like where you're going, but I think you're maybe wrong. I'm sure somebody more familiar with the legalities will chime in at some point, but yeah, that falls under contract law, not speech.

Quote (Kayeto @ 2 Feb 2021 00:52)

I agree with that, which is what I started with in post #6

There's a difference between people just running their mouth (speech) vs someone who is actually in a position where their words have some substantive weight as far as translating into action. It's just like the famous old example of yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 2 2021 07:19am)

So, as with most of my topics, this'll be ratioed the shit out of, and deserves to be. But, it's a point.

So, you have a right to transportation. Literally, you can move yourself from one spot to another. This is a right. It's protected. Except, if you want to do it with a vehicle, you need liability insurance. That way if you harm somebody else, they're covered. Okay.

The argument has been made, though it's not yet implemented, that liability insurance should be required for firearm ownership. Why? Well, if shit happens and somebody is harmed, they need to be covered. Right?

So, we've entered a point in this world where the wrong opinion, not incitement, not illegality, merely the wrong opinion is considered harmful. PTSD, etc. Over words. So, shouldn't words need to be insured? That way, when you (yes, WHEN you) say something that causes harm to another, it's covered.

Discuss, flame, I don't honestly give two shits. I think the absurdity of this pussy fucking generation is completely worthy of mocking. But, I DO think this particular subject WILL come up. I'm merely being an early adopter. :)

Quote (Djunior @ 2 Feb 2021 01:34)

What year do we live in? Ah, 2021.

I see where this is coming from

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 2 2021 03:57am)

It's legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. As long as there is a fire or other issue that requires immediate exit.

It's only a criminal act if the intent is to cause a stampede without a viable reason for doing so. And proving intent is insanely difficult in a court of law.

Just to point out. :)

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 2 2021 12:19am)

So, as with most of my topics, this'll be ratioed the shit out of, and deserves to be. But, it's a point.

So, you have a right to transportation. Literally, you can move yourself from one spot to another. This is a right. It's protected. Except, if you want to do it with a vehicle, you need liability insurance. That way if you harm somebody else, they're covered. Okay.

The argument has been made, though it's not yet implemented, that liability insurance should be required for firearm ownership. Why? Well, if shit happens and somebody is harmed, they need to be covered. Right?

So, we've entered a point in this world where the wrong opinion, not incitement, not illegality, merely the wrong opinion is considered harmful. PTSD, etc. Over words. So, shouldn't words need to be insured? That way, when you (yes, WHEN you) say something that causes harm to another, it's covered.

Discuss, flame, I don't honestly give two shits. I think the absurdity of this pussy fucking generation is completely worthy of mocking. But, I DO think this particular subject WILL come up. I'm merely being an early adopter. :)