The problem with these 'incitement' laws is that they miss that many legal scholars and founders of countries over the years have said that if someone has a problem with X thing, they do have the right to protest against it even violently.
Many courts seem to forget that today (on purpose, I think).
Good point, however with the border searches they are on 'firm ground' because federal law says that you can be searched (even strip-searched) after crossing the border for any reason and even without a reason.
Which is insane and something the Supreme Court should take up, but they have been exceptionally reticent to do that.
They don't get a paid vacation for murder. They get a 'paid vacation' for when they have been accused of using their firearm in the line of duty and that (to a normal person) appears to be murder until the investigation is done.
Many times, when something is ruled murder by the overseers in the police, the officer is charged with murder... however, many times, the officer will be let off solely because they are an officer 'of the law'.
Hit the nail on the head with the 'discretion causes problems'.
Personally, I feel that journalists should publish ALL papers they get with NO redaction on them. Redaction just allows people who were involved in various criminal or 'damaging to the image of our country' actions to get off scott-free.
Bullshit. If my 6 year old second cousin knows the difference between those three things (we enrolled her in a computer literacy class at the local public library), then damned sure adults should know what the difference is between them when they are specialists in that field.
This was not an 'accident'. This was a motivated attempt at silencing free speech on the internet and demonstrates why ANY censorship laws against ANYTHING (even something so controversial as child pornography) are bad because they can be and are abused.
I don't understand why those politicians were not arrested for treason for daring to use that argument. It would be like me calling for the assassination of the President or the repeal of the Constitution.
Well, the fact is that licensing should be BLANKET licensing to release things in any country where that thing is legal.
None of this "License for the U.S.", "License for Australia", and "License for South Africa" bullplop. That is just an attempt at copyright owners trying to make their stuff appear more 'valuable' by making companies/people pay multiple times for content.
Actually, censorship is NEVER justified. 99% of the time when someone is talking about 'censoring' something, they are actually hoping to push it 'underground' so that it won't come out, become popular, and become normalized.
They tried it with interracial marriages, they tried it with homosexuality, hell.... they even tried it with heterosexuality outside of 'marriage' (a purely human invention).
Bottom line is that we should not allow any censorship and tell people "You don't like X? Fine, you don't have to do it, but leave the people alone who want to do it unless they are physically forcing someone else into something against their will!"
Until these websites stop banning people for things like "comments harmful to minors" (Newsvine) and speaking out against societies viewpoint on some subjects (especially sexual viewpoints) I'm not going to use my real name nor a permanent e-mail address.
We need to have the First Amendment/the right to free speech (which is supposed to protect free speech even when it isn't government trying to clamp down on that) mean something online before I would support this.