New catholic scandal

what kind of indictment can i bring against you for this nonsense thread?where are the EvC LEOs? how do we get rid of rotten threads like this one?

If it encourages violence towards others then it is considered to be Incitement and he would be arrested and tried for that crime.
The fact it is illegal is enough justification for arresting someone.
And the fact that inciting violence is detrimental to society is enough justification for it being illegal.
I totally support freedom of speech, but not at the cost of other's lives. This seems very vague.
Could you provide a little more detail? Rioting (as opposed to protesting or marching) is illegal.
Encouraging others to commit a crime is Incitement and is illegal (in the UK).Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

It is.Our laws are pretty much the same as yours. I think you guys have the expression "you don't have the freedom to shout fire in a theatre" or some such, which was a similar situation at the time. (Although many people here thought the sentence was extremely harsh.)

So if someone says, "I am outraged! We should riot!" and there is subsequently NO rioting, is that a crime? Should it be?

I don't know enough about the particular case or how well it relates to the topic. I remember hearing that people were using social media to avoid police, etc. That is what I meant when I said there is a difference in using speech to orchestrate a riot.I am sorry, again I think it is just the different sensibilities that shaped our cultures, I don't think it is worth the slight benefits to my physical safety to start throwing people into jail for thought crimes no matter how revolting what they think is.I do think that there ARE many in the US that would gladly make that trade though.

No, it not a crime. Unless it's part of a deliberate campaign to cause a riot.

Sure it should but when the ones listening to you rob my store blind i wil hold you responsible for inciting that sort of behavior. If no damage comes to me i have no problem with you screaming out anything you want.Your rights go to the point where they dont infringe on the rights of others.

The facebook riot teenagers didn't just say 'we should riot' or something like that. That might well be protected speech. One of them set up a facebook event called 'Smash Down' and basically attempted to organize a riot by getting supporters to meet at a local McDonald's restaurant (I believe that the only people that showed up was the teenager himself and the police).Someone else did something similar, setting up a page called "Riot in the toon" (toon meaning 'town' generally referring to Newcastle where their accent causes 'town' to be pronounced 'toon') with an incitement for people to "kill some daftys" (a dafty, I believe, is someone who is daft). That person had previously lead a small civil disturbance of about 30 youths.There were some other similar cases too, I believe.From the limited information I have the priest said that it

quote:

---

gives a man the absolute license, without limitation, of abusing the body of this woman because she is the tragedy that brought you, and brought it as if it were a right

---

It's a google translation from Portuguese, but I think the meaning makes its way through well enough.So I wouldn't necessarily regard this as incitement in the same way the Facebook cases might have been, it's 'just' rape apologetics.

Yes, it is a crime.
The law is anticipatory in nature.
Obviously, there is 'small print' in relation to the crime (details regarding intent and context) but that is what the prosecution service and the courts are there for.
But, at its most basic, it is a crime to tell people to riot.If someone carries a concealed weapon but no-one is shot, is that a crime?
If someone is in possession of explosives but no-one has been blown up, is that a crime?
For similar reasons, encouraging crime is illegal.
The law's aim is to prevent crime before it happens. As I said in my previous reply: "I totally support freedom of speech, but not at the cost of other's lives."Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I Predict A Riot lyrics
Songwriters: James Simon Rix;Charles Richard Wilson;Andrew Robert White;Nicholas James David Hodgson;Nicholas Matthew BainesWatching the people get lairy
It's not very pretty I tell thee
Walking through town is quite scary
It's not very sensible either
A friend of a friend he got beaten
He looked the wrong way at a policeman
Would never of happened to Smeaton
An old LeodensianI predict a riot
I predict a riot
I predict a riot
I predict a riotI tried to get to my taxi
The man in a tracksuit attacks me
He said that he saw it before me
And wants to get things a bit gory
Girls scrabble round with no clothes on
To borrow a pound for a condom
If it wasn't for chip fat they'd be frozen
They're not very sensibleI predict a riot
I predict a riot
I predict a riot
I predict a riotAnd if there's anybody left in here
Who that doesn't want to be out there
Watching the people get lairy
It's not very pretty I tell thee
Walking through town is quite scary
It's not very sensibleI predict a riot
I predict a riot
I predict a riot
I predict a riotAnd if there's anybody left in here
Who that doesn't want to be out thereI predict a riot
I predict a riot
I predict a riot
I predict a riotSo far no prosecution for incitement.

Au contraire...

quote:

---

British indie band the Kaiser Chiefs have been arrested by the British police after looters were heard humming the song I Predict A Riot.

---

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/...d_for_predicting_the_future

quote:

---

In a series of dawn raids at the band's various homes, British Home Secretary Theresa May congratulated the bobbies for 'nipping incitement to cause fear and damage in the community'.

---

For clarity and for those readers lacking a sense of irony - this article is a spoof :-)UnNews:Kaiser Chiefs arrested for predicting the futureEdited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I think the problem with the Archbishop's sermon is that he has made the comments in his professional role. He is an authority who was teaching (or preaching) to a congregation he has authority over. As far as I can tell, what he was saying goes against what the Christian church teaches, not casting stones etc. Law enforcement agencies in his area may want to point out that nothing allows people to disregard the law with regard to rape. The RCC who he represents should be taking him to task over this, unless of course they think he has a point. If they do nothing they are demonstrating that they are aligning themselves with his statement. If that is what happens then the RCC will deserve all of the fall-out they get. Have they learned nothing from the various child abuse scandals?In the UK there is a law against incitement to violence and giving people carte blanche to commit rape may come under this. Whether the law in Spain is the same I have no idea.Imagine a school teacher in a religious education class making this statement. If your child was in that class what would you do? I think the local authorities would be removing that teacher from it's payroll swiftly and issuing apologies to all concerned.While we may all yell about the right to free speech, does this archbishop have the right to "free teach"?

I don't think you could make a case for this being incitement. We only have a limited part of what he said, but from my understanding he is not telling people it is okay to rape anyone. I'd expect that he still considers rape a sin (although, in his twisted, medieval morality it probably ranks as a lesser sin than having an abortion).Rather, he is putting across that view that it would be churlish for a woman to complain about being raped after having an abortion. After all, she's made it clear that it's okay to abuse her body by doing so herself, God's will be damned. The argument is in some way akin to 'it's her own fault for wearing a short skirt'. It's not an enouragement to rape, but a declaration that 'she brought it on herself'.So, abhorrent, but not illegal.Incidentally, incitement is no longer a crime a Britain, having been replaced with a new, statutory offence of 'encouraging or assisting an offence'.

This is probably the most important aspect of this particular story.
I would not want him solely convicted on what a newspaper has printed. In a colloquial sense 'incitement' is illegal, but yes, the actual offense of 'Incitement' has been replaced with a different (but very similar) offence.
(tbh: I am having trouble telling them apart.)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.