[MD] An Observation From An Outsider

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[MK]
Looks like we are back at square one.

[Arlo]
Maybe you are. But I suspect that was your intended destination the whole time.

[MK]
It is interesting that your logic assumes and requires a critical mass of
individuals who are willing or predisposed to act in some violent way...

[Arlo]
I think this is consistent with other law. For example, there is no law against
shouting "Fire!" in a theatre if you are the only one in there. 

I am not sure what you are taking issue with here, but nothing I said is
addressed by your reply.

You asked me how I would define "incite violence", and I answered that a good
place to start is "likelihood of imminent violence". I gave several examples
along this continuum. And I said the law should err on the side of freedom.

I also mentioned that I do not find it acceptable to allow a population within
our nation to live in terror and fear for their well-being. If I had been a
black man in Alabama (as I said) during the reign of the KKK, I would have
lived in real fear. Indeed, wouldn't you define the KKK as a "terrorist" group?
Back then? Now? I am sure the black population did indeed feel terrorized. And
it is moral, IMO, for a society to intervene when part of its population is
forced to live in fear.

[MK]
then the violent individuals are vindicated and the speaker culpable

[Arlo]
That's inane, and quite a distortion. I never said the individuals committing
the violence are "vindicated" (Mr. Limbaugh). Indeed, both the vandalizers and
the instigators share responsibility. You can't incite someone to commit a
crime for you and then say "hey, wasn't me." 

Would you say Wilders is not holding the speakers culpable? I thought that was
precisely his point. (Despite the irony)

When you are prepared to call Wilders an Orwellian Statist, I'll accept your
apology.