New catholic scandal

That would have to be decided in court.
But the answer is: "Yes, you could be responsible."As a similar example:
A Guardian article on 2 lads that posted on facebook, encouraging riots in the UK.
They never attended a riot - "Neither of their Facebook posts resulted in a riot-related event."
All they did was post on Facebook.But they still got 4 years in prison.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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'.

---

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.

It tells us that people didn't like you post.
That's what jeers are for.
But feel free to make up rabidly crazy excuses to support your own paranoid delusions of grandeur and victimisation. Ah - I see you did.

Judging from your long history of posting jeers and not replying, you clearly don't have a problem with such 'trollish behaviour'.
On balance though, hypocrisy is one of your nicer characteristics.

You hover the mouse over the red jeer icons.
So yes - I do know it is you that is jeering without replying.
And we all know what you think of people that jeer without responding... "What does that tell us? It is indicative that the jeers were biased and unwarranted. It is indicative that the message was irrefutable."
Considering how many biased and unwarranted jeers you have applied without a reply, you must have encountered many many messages which you were unable to refute. So, when we don't reply you call us trolls and when we do reply you call us trolls.
I think you don't actually know what a troll is. Hypocrisy noted. And nor does anyone else.
I would ask you for evidence of indiscriminate jeering, but I know that you don't 'do' evidence.
I also don't think you know what 'indiscriminate' means.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.