Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. This
time for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University
Leuven in which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating
quality of life in Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and >scientific studies, with the bulk of his argument consisting of the >manifestly provable fact that mass 3rd-world migration exacerbates
crime. Even though that's true, under Belgium's "anti-racism" law,
you're not allowed to say it.
Yes, spreading reckless facts is now a criminal offense in Belgium
if those facts lead people to conclusions the 'progressive' leftist >government doesn't like.
The judge in his case expressly stated as much:
"Even if all of the statements made by Van Langenhove are based on
scientific evidence and statistics, it makes no difference to the
criminal intent. Van Langenhove is not charged with spreading false >information. He is charged with presenting facts in a way that incites
hatred against person on the grounds of one or more of the protected
criteria in the Anti-Racism Law."
. . .
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. This time for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University Leuven in which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating quality of life in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific studies, with the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact that mass 3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though that's true, under Belgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it.
Yes, spreading reckless facts is now a criminal offense in Belgium if those facts lead people to conclusions the 'progressive' leftist government doesn't like.
The judge in his case expressly stated as much:
"Even if all of the statements made by Van Langenhove are based on scientific evidence and statistics, it makes no difference to the criminal intent. Van Langenhove is not charged with spreading false information. He is charged with
presenting facts in a way that incites hatred against person on the grounds of
one or more of the protected criteria in the Anti-Racism Law."
Key takeaway there: he's charged with presenting facts. Facts that would lead any logical, rational person to conclude that mass migration exacerbates crime. I mean... it does. In every single country where it occurs, it does. But you can't lead someone to come to that conclusion in Belgium because it might make them think less of non-white people.
The judge continued:
"It does not matter to the court that Van Langenhove is quoting scientific sources. His main message was that societal problems like safety insecurity, housing shortages, and declining educational standards are due to mass migration."
The prosecution never presented any evidence that Van Langenhove was wrong. Under the law, he didn't need to. Merely suggesting that forced diversity leads to anything other than rainbows and gumdrop-shitting unicorns is a criminal offense.
"For Van Langenhove to have committed a crime, it is not necessary for him to have incited concrete acts of hate or violence. It suffices that others are incited to take on a general attitude of intolerance or disapproval regarding a group protected under the criteria of the Anti-Racism Law."
Yes, in Belgium it's literally crime to say that diversity isn't our greatest strength.
Mass migration has been inflicted on every Western country in the world by their own governments and even as it's become blindingly obvious that the consequences are overwhelmingly negative, there has been no pause for reflection, no attempt was made to hit the brakes to even slow down a little (except in the U.S. where the anomaly of Trump's election has brought us a brief respite from the flood of millions of illegals pouring across our border
with the blessing and encouragement of the government). Knowing that the edge of the cliff is drawing nearer and nearer, they've accelerated.
And not only did they never ask us if we wanted this in the first place, knowing that public sentiment has turned ardently against it as its consequence have become more and more visible, they've deliberately embarked on a campaign to defuse that sentiment. Not by accepting its legitimacy or accommodating its demands, but by laying the legal groundwork for its complete
criminalization.
Oh, you're concerned about the place where you grew up changing beyond all recognition within the span of a decade or two?
You're concerned about the rise of violent crime and the fact that women no longer have the freedom to move about alone without risking assault, rape, or worse?
You're concerned that your culture and national identity are being systematically erased and replaced with a foreign culture that's incompatible with your values?
Concerned about your kids not being able to safely walk home from school?
Concerned about why you can't afford a modest house or why there's suddenly trash everywhere and fields and rivers have turned into makeshift landfills?
Concerned that your shopping district no longer has any recognizable stores and has turned into an endless parade of vape shops, Turkish barbers, and halal butcheries?
Concerned about the world your children will inherit when they become a minority in their own land?
Don't be concerned. No, seriously. Don't be concerned. Just shut your mouth or
we'll lock you up in a cage.
We really have reached the ruthless predatory phase of the dystopia, haven't we? Where it's become so blindingly obvious and everyone knows the truth. They
know we know and they've dropped the pretense of trying to convince us otherwise.
"The heresy of heresies was common sense. In the end, the Party would announce
that 2 + 2 equaled 5 and you would have to believe it." --George Orwell, 1984
On 5/27/2026 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. This time >> for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University Leuven in >> which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating quality of life >> in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific studies, with >> the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact that mass >> 3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though that's true, under
Belgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it.
Yes, spreading reckless facts is now a criminal offense in Belgium if those >> facts lead people to conclusions the 'progressive' leftist government
doesn't
like.
The judge in his case expressly stated as much:
"Even if all of the statements made by Van Langenhove are based on
scientific
evidence and statistics, it makes no difference to the criminal intent. Van >> Langenhove is not charged with spreading false information. He is charged >> with
presenting facts in a way that incites hatred against a person on the
grounds of
one or more of the protected criteria in the Anti-Racism Law."
Key takeaway there: he's charged with presenting facts. Facts that would
lead
any logical, rational person to conclude that mass migration exacerbates
crime. I mean... it does. In every single country where it occurs, it does. >> But you can't lead someone to come to that conclusion in Belgium because it >> might make them think less of non-white people.
The judge continued:
"It does not matter to the court that Van Langenhove is quoting scientific >> sources. His main message was that societal problems like safety insecurity,
housing shortages, and declining educational standards are due to mass
migration."
The prosecution never presented any evidence that Van Langenhove was wrong. >> Under the law, he didn't need to. Merely suggesting that forced diversity >> leads to anything other than rainbows and gumdrop-shitting unicorns is a
criminal offense.
"For Van Langenhove to have committed a crime, it is not necessary for him >> to
have incited concrete acts of hate or violence. It suffices that others are >> incited to take on a general attitude of intolerance or disapproval
regarding
a group protected under the criteria of the Anti-Racism Law."
Yes, in Belgium it's literally a crime to say that diversity isn't our
greatest
strength.
Mass migration has been inflicted on every Western country in the world by >> their own governments and even as it's become blindingly obvious that the >> consequences are overwhelmingly negative, there has been no pause for
reflection, no attempt has been made to hit the brakes to even slow down a >> little
(except in the U.S. where the anomaly of Trump's election has brought us a >> brief respite from the flood of millions of illegals pouring across our
border
with the blessing and encouragement of the government). Knowing that the
edge
of the cliff is drawing nearer and nearer, they've accelerated.
And not only did they never ask us if we wanted this in the first place,
knowing that public sentiment has turned ardently against it as its
consequence have become more and more visible, they've deliberately embarked
on a campaign to defuse that sentiment. Not by accepting its legitimacy or >> accommodating its demands, but by laying the legal groundwork for its
complete
criminalization.
Oh, you're concerned about the place where you grew up changing beyond all >> recognition within the span of a decade or two?
You're concerned about the rise of violent crime and the fact that women no >> longer have the freedom to move about alone without risking assault, rape, >> or
worse?
You're concerned that your culture and national identity are being
systematically erased and replaced with a foreign culture that's
incompatible
with your values?
Concerned about your kids not being able to safely walk home from school? >>
Concerned about why you can't afford a modest house or why there's suddenly >> trash everywhere and fields and rivers have turned into makeshift landfills?
Concerned that your shopping district no longer has any recognizable stores >> and has turned into an endless parade of vape shops, Turkish barbers, and >> halal butcheries?
Concerned about the world your children will inherit when they become a
minority in their own land?
Don't be concerned. No, seriously. Don't be concerned. Just shut your mouth >> or
we'll lock you up in a cage.
We really have reached the ruthless predatory phase of the dystopia, haven't
we? Where it's become so blindingly obvious and everyone knows the truth. >> They
know we know and they've dropped the pretense of trying to convince us
otherwise.
"The heresy of heresies was common sense. In the end, the Party would
announce
that 2 + 2 equaled 5 and you would have to believe it." --George Orwell, >> 1984
Afaics, his legal guilt lies in his choice of which "truth" to
broadcast, not in its verity.
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/27/2026 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. This time
for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University Leuven in >>> which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating quality of life
in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific studies, with
the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact that mass >>> 3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though that's true, under
Belgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it.
Yes, spreading reckless facts is now a criminal offense in Belgium if those
facts lead people to conclusions the 'progressive' leftist government
doesn't
like.
The judge in his case expressly stated as much:
"Even if all of the statements made by Van Langenhove are based on
scientific
evidence and statistics, it makes no difference to the criminal intent. Van
Langenhove is not charged with spreading false information. He is charged >>> with
presenting facts in a way that incites hatred against a person on the
grounds of
one or more of the protected criteria in the Anti-Racism Law."
Key takeaway there: he's charged with presenting facts. Facts that would >>> lead
any logical, rational person to conclude that mass migration exacerbates >>> crime. I mean... it does. In every single country where it occurs, it does.
But you can't lead someone to come to that conclusion in Belgium because it
might make them think less of non-white people.
The judge continued:
"It does not matter to the court that Van Langenhove is quoting scientific
sources. His main message was that societal problems like safety insecurity,
housing shortages, and declining educational standards are due to mass >>> migration."
The prosecution never presented any evidence that Van Langenhove was wrong.
Under the law, he didn't need to. Merely suggesting that forced diversity >>> leads to anything other than rainbows and gumdrop-shitting unicorns is a >>> criminal offense.
"For Van Langenhove to have committed a crime, it is not necessary for him
to
have incited concrete acts of hate or violence. It suffices that others are
incited to take on a general attitude of intolerance or disapproval
regarding
a group protected under the criteria of the Anti-Racism Law."
Yes, in Belgium it's literally a crime to say that diversity isn't our >>> greatest
strength.
Mass migration has been inflicted on every Western country in the world by
their own governments and even as it's become blindingly obvious that the >>> consequences are overwhelmingly negative, there has been no pause for
reflection, no attempt has been made to hit the brakes to even slow down a
little
(except in the U.S. where the anomaly of Trump's election has brought us a
brief respite from the flood of millions of illegals pouring across our >>> border
with the blessing and encouragement of the government). Knowing that the >>> edge
of the cliff is drawing nearer and nearer, they've accelerated.
And not only did they never ask us if we wanted this in the first place, >>> knowing that public sentiment has turned ardently against it as its
consequence have become more and more visible, they've deliberately embarked
on a campaign to defuse that sentiment. Not by accepting its legitimacy or
accommodating its demands, but by laying the legal groundwork for its
complete
criminalization.
Oh, you're concerned about the place where you grew up changing beyond all
recognition within the span of a decade or two?
You're concerned about the rise of violent crime and the fact that women no
longer have the freedom to move about alone without risking assault, rape,
or
worse?
You're concerned that your culture and national identity are being
systematically erased and replaced with a foreign culture that's
incompatible
with your values?
Concerned about your kids not being able to safely walk home from school? >>>
Concerned about why you can't afford a modest house or why there's suddenly
trash everywhere and fields and rivers have turned into makeshift landfills?
Concerned that your shopping district no longer has any recognizable stores
and has turned into an endless parade of vape shops, Turkish barbers, and >>> halal butcheries?
Concerned about the world your children will inherit when they become a >>> minority in their own land?
Don't be concerned. No, seriously. Don't be concerned. Just shut your mouth
or
we'll lock you up in a cage.
We really have reached the ruthless predatory phase of the dystopia, haven't
we? Where it's become so blindingly obvious and everyone knows the truth. >>> They
know we know and they've dropped the pretense of trying to convince us >>> otherwise.
"The heresy of heresies was common sense. In the end, the Party would
announce
that 2 + 2 equaled 5 and you would have to believe it." --George Orwell, >>> 1984
Afaics, his legal guilt lies in his choice of which "truth" to
broadcast, not in its verity.
As if that makes any difference with regard to the fundamental authoritarianism involved here.
"You can speak the truth, but only the truths pre-approved by the state."
You're right, that's not nearly as bad.
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive negative impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than what the government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least they were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never made any pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a real bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that they're not executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free, open, and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're locking you
up for saying anything they don't like.
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/27/2026 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. This time
for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University Leuven in >>> which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating quality of life
in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific studies, with
the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact that mass >>> 3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though that's true, under
Belgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it.
Yes, spreading reckless facts is now a criminal offense in Belgium if those
facts lead people to conclusions the 'progressive' leftist government
doesn't
like.
The judge in his case expressly stated as much:
"Even if all of the statements made by Van Langenhove are based on
scientific
evidence and statistics, it makes no difference to the criminal intent. Van
Langenhove is not charged with spreading false information. He is charged >>> with
presenting facts in a way that incites hatred against a person on the
grounds of
one or more of the protected criteria in the Anti-Racism Law."
Key takeaway there: he's charged with presenting facts. Facts that would >>> lead
any logical, rational person to conclude that mass migration exacerbates >>> crime. I mean... it does. In every single country where it occurs, it does.
But you can't lead someone to come to that conclusion in Belgium because it
might make them think less of non-white people.
The judge continued:
"It does not matter to the court that Van Langenhove is quoting scientific
sources. His main message was that societal problems like safety insecurity,
housing shortages, and declining educational standards are due to mass >>> migration."
The prosecution never presented any evidence that Van Langenhove was wrong.
Under the law, he didn't need to. Merely suggesting that forced diversity >>> leads to anything other than rainbows and gumdrop-shitting unicorns is a >>> criminal offense.
"For Van Langenhove to have committed a crime, it is not necessary for him
to
have incited concrete acts of hate or violence. It suffices that others are
incited to take on a general attitude of intolerance or disapproval
regarding
a group protected under the criteria of the Anti-Racism Law."
Yes, in Belgium it's literally a crime to say that diversity isn't our >>> greatest
strength.
Mass migration has been inflicted on every Western country in the world by
their own governments and even as it's become blindingly obvious that the >>> consequences are overwhelmingly negative, there has been no pause for
reflection, no attempt has been made to hit the brakes to even slow down a
little
(except in the U.S. where the anomaly of Trump's election has brought us a
brief respite from the flood of millions of illegals pouring across our >>> border
with the blessing and encouragement of the government). Knowing that the >>> edge
of the cliff is drawing nearer and nearer, they've accelerated.
And not only did they never ask us if we wanted this in the first place, >>> knowing that public sentiment has turned ardently against it as its
consequence have become more and more visible, they've deliberately embarked
on a campaign to defuse that sentiment. Not by accepting its legitimacy or
accommodating its demands, but by laying the legal groundwork for its
complete
criminalization.
Oh, you're concerned about the place where you grew up changing beyond all
recognition within the span of a decade or two?
You're concerned about the rise of violent crime and the fact that women no
longer have the freedom to move about alone without risking assault, rape,
or
worse?
You're concerned that your culture and national identity are being
systematically erased and replaced with a foreign culture that's
incompatible
with your values?
Concerned about your kids not being able to safely walk home from school? >>>
Concerned about why you can't afford a modest house or why there's suddenly
trash everywhere and fields and rivers have turned into makeshift landfills?
Concerned that your shopping district no longer has any recognizable stores
and has turned into an endless parade of vape shops, Turkish barbers, and >>> halal butcheries?
Concerned about the world your children will inherit when they become a >>> minority in their own land?
Don't be concerned. No, seriously. Don't be concerned. Just shut your mouth
or
we'll lock you up in a cage.
We really have reached the ruthless predatory phase of the dystopia, haven't
we? Where it's become so blindingly obvious and everyone knows the truth. >>> They
know we know and they've dropped the pretense of trying to convince us >>> otherwise.
"The heresy of heresies was common sense. In the end, the Party would
announce
that 2 + 2 equaled 5 and you would have to believe it." --George Orwell, >>> 1984
Afaics, his legal guilt lies in his choice of which "truth" to
broadcast, not in its verity.
As if that makes any difference with regard to the fundamental authoritarianism involved here.
"You can speak the truth, but only the truths pre-approved by the state."
You're right, that's not nearly as bad.
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive negative impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than what the government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least they were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never made any pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a real bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that they're not executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free, open, and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're locking you
up for saying anything they don't like.
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 5/27/2026 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. This >>>> time
for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University Leuven in
which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating quality of >>>> life
in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific studies, with
the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact that mass
3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though that's true, under >>>> Belgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it.
Afaics, his legal guilt lies in his choice of which "truth" to
broadcast, not in its verity.
As if that makes any difference with regard to the fundamental
authoritarianism involved here.
"You can speak the truth, but only the truths pre-approved by the state." >>
You're right, that's not nearly as bad.
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than what the >> government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least they >> were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a real >> bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're locking >> you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should* govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 5/27/2026 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. This
time
for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University Leuven in
which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating quality of
life
in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific studies, with
the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact that mass
3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though that's true, under >>>>> Belgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it.
Afaics, his legal guilt lies in his choice of which "truth" to
broadcast, not in its verity.
As if that makes any difference with regard to the fundamental
authoritarianism involved here.
"You can speak the truth, but only the truths pre-approved by the state." >>>
You're right, that's not nearly as bad.
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to >>>> sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free, >>> open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
True and direct threats of violence to others have always been punishable.
Others point to defamation as a limitation on free speech, but it's really not. You're still free to speak, and the government still can't punish you for
it, but if you defame someone, you may have to bear some civil (monetary) consequences to them for your transgression.
In the U.S. the only other exception to free speech is obscenity, which is a vague term on its own, but which in practice has been limited to child pornography and bestiality.
I'm pretty cool with all that.
On 5/29/2026 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/27/2026 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. This
time
for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University >>>>>> Leuven in
which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating quality of
life
in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific
studies, with
the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact >>>>>> that mass
3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though that's true, under
Belgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it.
Afaics, his legal guilt lies in his choice of which "truth" to
broadcast, not in its verity.
As if that makes any difference with regard to the fundamental
authoritarianism involved here.
"You can speak the truth, but only the truths pre-approved by the state."
You're right, that's not nearly as bad.
Note that if, as you suggest, it's aYes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western >>>> nations"
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to >>>>> sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal. >>>>
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive >>>> negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least >>>> they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never >>>> made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a >>>> real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as >>>> authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that
they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free, >>>> open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should* >>> govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
True and direct threats of violence to others have always been punishable. >>
Others point to defamation as a limitation on free speech, but it's really >> not. You're still free to speak, and the government still can't punish you >> for
it, but if you defame someone, you may have to bear some civil (monetary) >> consequences to them for your transgression.
In the U.S. the only other exception to free speech is obscenity, which is a
vague term on its own, but which in practice has been limited to child
pornography and bestiality.
I'm pretty cool with all that.
Would it be okay, say in Mississippi, to post a compendium of horrifying black-on-white crimes along with a brochure about one-way trips to
Kenya?
I'm guessing some judge might disallow such a collection of
"facts" as incitement to racial discord. Would he be wrong?
On May 29, 2026 at 6:52:49 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/29/2026 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/27/2026 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. This
time
for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University >>>>>>> Leuven in
which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating quality of
life
in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific >>>>>>> studies, with
the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact >>>>>>> that mass
3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though that's true, under
Belgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it.
Afaics, his legal guilt lies in his choice of which "truth" to >>>>>> broadcast, not in its verity.
As if that makes any difference with regard to the fundamental
authoritarianism involved here.
"You can speak the truth, but only the truths pre-approved by the state."
You're right, that's not nearly as bad.
Note that if, as you suggest, it's aYes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western >>>>> nations"
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal. >>>>>
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive >>>>> negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never >>>>> made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as >>>>> authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that >>>>> they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should* >>>> govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the >>>> most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
True and direct threats of violence to others have always been punishable.
Others point to defamation as a limitation on free speech, but it's really
not. You're still free to speak, and the government still can't punish you
for
it, but if you defame someone, you may have to bear some civil (monetary) >>> consequences to them for your transgression.
In the U.S. the only other exception to free speech is obscenity, which is a
vague term on its own, but which in practice has been limited to child >>> pornography and bestiality.
I'm pretty cool with all that.
Would it be okay, say in Mississippi, to post a compendium of horrifying
black-on-white crimes along with a brochure about one-way trips to
Kenya?
Yes.
I'm guessing some judge might disallow such a collection of
"facts" as incitement to racial discord. Would he be wrong?
A judge in Europe might do that, perhaps. But any judge in America should be well aware that 250 years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence dictates that he has no authority whatsoever to 'disallow' the publication of a book of historical facts regardless of its effects on race relations.
On 5/29/2026 11:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 6:52:49 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 5/29/2026 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 5/27/2026 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. ThisAfaics, his legal guilt lies in his choice of which "truth" to >>>>>>> broadcast, not in its verity.
time
for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University >>>>>>>> Leuven in
which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating quality of
life
in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific >>>>>>>> studies, with
the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact >>>>>>>> that mass
3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though that's true, under
Belgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it. >>>>>>>
As if that makes any difference with regard to the fundamental >>>>>> authoritarianism involved here.
"You can speak the truth, but only the truths pre-approved by the >>>>>> state."
You're right, that's not nearly as bad.
Note that if, as you suggest, it's aYes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal. >>>>>>
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive >>>>>> negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than >>>>>> what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never >>>>>> made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as >>>>>> authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that >>>>>> they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're >>>>>> locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a >>>>> cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the >>>>> most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
True and direct threats of violence to others have always been punishable.
Others point to defamation as a limitation on free speech, but it's really
not. You're still free to speak, and the government still can't punish you
for
it, but if you defame someone, you may have to bear some civil (monetary)
consequences to them for your transgression.
In the U.S. the only other exception to free speech is obscenity, which >>>> is a
vague term on its own, but which in practice has been limited to child >>>> pornography and bestiality.
I'm pretty cool with all that.
Would it be okay, say in Mississippi, to post a compendium of horrifying >>> black-on-white crimes along with a brochure about one-way trips to
Kenya?
Yes.
I'm guessing some judge might disallow such a collection of
"facts" as incitement to racial discord. Would he be wrong?
A judge in Europe might do that, perhaps. But any judge in America should be
well aware that 250 years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence dictates that he >> has
no authority whatsoever to 'disallow' the publication of a book of
historical
facts regardless of its effects on race relations.
Seems to raise the question of whether (e.g.) "Remember the Alamo!" is
an historical fact or a dog whistle.
And I'm not sure why the former
should invariably grant safe passage to the latter.
On May 30, 2026 at 8:20:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/29/2026 11:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 6:52:49 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 5/29/2026 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig"
arrested again. This
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/27/2026 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been
deteriorating quality oftime
for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University
Leuven in
which he linked mass migration to crime and a
that's true, underlife
in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific >>>>>>>>> studies, with
the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact
that mass
3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though
is akin toBelgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it. >>>>>>>>Afaics, his legal guilt lies in his choice of which "truth" to >>>>>>>> broadcast, not in its verity.
As if that makes any difference with regard to the fundamental >>>>>>> authoritarianism involved here.
"You can speak the truth, but only the truths pre-approved by the >>>>>>> state."
You're right, that's not nearly as bad.
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing
free Westernsloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and
but at leastnations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive
negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than >>>>>>> what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators,
would have athey
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never
made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected
they're free,real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that >>>>>>> they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist
it's reallyopen,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're >>>>>>> locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a >>>>>> cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, >*should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the >>>>>> most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
True and direct threats of violence to others have always been >punishable.
Others point to defamation as a limitation on free speech, but
not. You're still free to speak, and the government still can't >punish you
for
it, but if you defame someone, you may have to bear some civil >(monetary)
consequences to them for your transgression.
In the U.S. the only other exception to free speech is obscenity, which
is a
vague term on its own, but which in practice has been limited to child >>>>> pornography and bestiality.
I'm pretty cool with all that.
Would it be okay, say in Mississippi, to post a compendium of horrifying >>>> black-on-white crimes along with a brochure about one-way trips to
Kenya?
Yes.
I'm guessing some judge might disallow such a collection of
"facts" as incitement to racial discord. Would he be wrong?
A judge in Europe might do that, perhaps. But any judge in America should be
well aware that 250 years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence dictates that he >>> has
no authority whatsoever to 'disallow' the publication of a book of
historical
facts regardless of its effects on race relations.
Seems to raise the question of whether (e.g.) "Remember the Alamo!" is
an historical fact or a dog whistle.
Dog whistles (and pig sirens and dolphin chirps) are all protected 1st >Amendment speech.
And I'm not sure why the former
should invariably grant safe passage to the latter.
Because the 1st Amendment and the 250+ years of jurisprudence that illuminates >it says so.
On May 30, 2026 at 8:20:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/29/2026 11:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 6:52:49 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 5/29/2026 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 5/27/2026 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. ThisAfaics, his legal guilt lies in his choice of which "truth" to >>>>>>>> broadcast, not in its verity.
time
for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University
Leuven in
which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating quality of
life
in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific >>>>>>>>> studies, with
the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact
that mass
3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though that's true, under
Belgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it. >>>>>>>>
As if that makes any difference with regard to the fundamental >>>>>>> authoritarianism involved here.
"You can speak the truth, but only the truths pre-approved by the >>>>>>> state."
You're right, that's not nearly as bad.
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive
negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than >>>>>>> what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never
made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that >>>>>>> they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're
locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a >>>>>> cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the >>>>>> most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
True and direct threats of violence to others have always been punishable.
Others point to defamation as a limitation on free speech, but it's really
not. You're still free to speak, and the government still can't punish you
for
it, but if you defame someone, you may have to bear some civil (monetary)
consequences to them for your transgression.
In the U.S. the only other exception to free speech is obscenity, which
is a
vague term on its own, but which in practice has been limited to child
pornography and bestiality.
I'm pretty cool with all that.
Would it be okay, say in Mississippi, to post a compendium of horrifying >>>> black-on-white crimes along with a brochure about one-way trips to
Kenya?
Yes.
I'm guessing some judge might disallow such a collection of
"facts" as incitement to racial discord. Would he be wrong?
A judge in Europe might do that, perhaps. But any judge in America should be
well aware that 250 years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence dictates that he >>> has
no authority whatsoever to 'disallow' the publication of a book of
historical
facts regardless of its effects on race relations.
Seems to raise the question of whether (e.g.) "Remember the Alamo!" is
an historical fact or a dog whistle.
Dog whistles (and pig sirens and dolphin chirps) are all protected 1st Amendment speech.
And I'm not sure why the former
should invariably grant safe passage to the latter.
Because the 1st Amendment and the 250+ years of jurisprudence that illuminates
it says so.
On 5/30/2026 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 30, 2026 at 8:20:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/29/2026 11:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 6:52:49 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>
On 5/29/2026 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/27/2026 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. This
time
for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University >>>>>>>>>> Leuven in
which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating quality of
life
in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific >>>>>>>>>> studies, with
the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact >>>>>>>>>> that mass
3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though that's true, under
Belgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it.
Afaics, his legal guilt lies in his choice of which "truth" to >>>>>>>>> broadcast, not in its verity.
As if that makes any difference with regard to the fundamental >>>>>>>> authoritarianism involved here.
"You can speak the truth, but only the truths pre-approved by the >>>>>>>> state."
You're right, that's not nearly as bad.
Note that if, as you suggest, it's aYes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western >>>>>>>> nations"
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to >>>>>>>>> sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal. >>>>>>>>
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive >>>>>>>> negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than >>>>>>>> what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least >>>>>>>> they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never >>>>>>>> made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a >>>>>>>> real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as >>>>>>>> authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that >>>>>>>> they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're >>>>>>>> locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a >>>>>>> cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the >>>>>>> most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
True and direct threats of violence to others have always been punishable.
Others point to defamation as a limitation on free speech, but it's really
not. You're still free to speak, and the government still can't punish you
for
it, but if you defame someone, you may have to bear some civil (monetary)
consequences to them for your transgression.
In the U.S. the only other exception to free speech is obscenity, which >>>>>> is a
vague term on its own, but which in practice has been limited to child >>>>>> pornography and bestiality.
I'm pretty cool with all that.
Would it be okay, say in Mississippi, to post a compendium of horrifying >>>>> black-on-white crimes along with a brochure about one-way trips to
Kenya?
Yes.
I'm guessing some judge might disallow such a collection of
"facts" as incitement to racial discord. Would he be wrong?
A judge in Europe might do that, perhaps. But any judge in America should be
well aware that 250 years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence dictates that he >>>> has
no authority whatsoever to 'disallow' the publication of a book of
historical
facts regardless of its effects on race relations.
Seems to raise the question of whether (e.g.) "Remember the Alamo!" is
an historical fact or a dog whistle.
Dog whistles (and pig sirens and dolphin chirps) are all protected 1st
Amendment speech.
And I'm not sure why the former
should invariably grant safe passage to the latter.
Because the 1st Amendment and the 250+ years of jurisprudence that illuminates
it says so.
Well, the "incitement to imminent lawless action" (which seems to be
what's is at issue here)
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/30/2026 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 30, 2026 at 8:20:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 5/29/2026 11:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 6:52:49 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 5/29/2026 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/27/2026 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. ThisAfaics, his legal guilt lies in his choice of which "truth" to >>>>>>>>>> broadcast, not in its verity.
time
for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University >>>>>>>>>>> Leuven in
which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating quality of
life
in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific >>>>>>>>>>> studies, with
the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact >>>>>>>>>>> that mass
3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though that's true, under
Belgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it. >>>>>>>>>>
As if that makes any difference with regard to the fundamental >>>>>>>>> authoritarianism involved here.
"You can speak the truth, but only the truths pre-approved by the >>>>>>>>> state."
You're right, that's not nearly as bad.
Note that if, as you suggest, it's aYes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western >>>>>>>>> nations"
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal. >>>>>>>>>
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive >>>>>>>>> negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than >>>>>>>>> what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never >>>>>>>>> made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as >>>>>>>>> authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that >>>>>>>>> they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're >>>>>>>>> locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a >>>>>>>> cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the >>>>>>>> most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
True and direct threats of violence to others have always been punishable.
Others point to defamation as a limitation on free speech, but it's really
not. You're still free to speak, and the government still can't punish you
for
it, but if you defame someone, you may have to bear some civil (monetary)
consequences to them for your transgression.
In the U.S. the only other exception to free speech is obscenity, which >>>>>>> is a
vague term on its own, but which in practice has been limited to child >>>>>>> pornography and bestiality.
I'm pretty cool with all that.
Would it be okay, say in Mississippi, to post a compendium of horrifying >>>>>> black-on-white crimes along with a brochure about one-way trips to >>>>>> Kenya?
Yes.
I'm guessing some judge might disallow such a collection of
"facts" as incitement to racial discord. Would he be wrong?
A judge in Europe might do that, perhaps. But any judge in America should be
well aware that 250 years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence dictates that he >>>>> has
no authority whatsoever to 'disallow' the publication of a book of
historical
facts regardless of its effects on race relations.
Seems to raise the question of whether (e.g.) "Remember the Alamo!" is >>>> an historical fact or a dog whistle.
Dog whistles (and pig sirens and dolphin chirps) are all protected 1st
Amendment speech.
And I'm not sure why the former
should invariably grant safe passage to the latter.
Because the 1st Amendment and the 250+ years of jurisprudence that illuminates
it says so.
Well, the "incitement to imminent lawless action" (which seems to be
what's is at issue here)
Brandenburg is not implicated in your scenario because a published book
fails the 'imminent' prong of the Brandenburg test.
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
. . .
Well, the "incitement to imminent lawless action" (which seems to be >>what's is at issue here)
Brandenburg is not implicated in your scenario because a published book
fails the 'imminent' prong of the Brandenburg test.
On 5/31/2026 6:18 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/30/2026 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 30, 2026 at 8:20:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>
On 5/29/2026 11:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 6:52:49 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/29/2026 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:True and direct threats of violence to others have always been punishable.
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 5/27/2026 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. ThisAfaics, his legal guilt lies in his choice of which "truth" to >>>>>>>>>>> broadcast, not in its verity.
time
for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University >>>>>>>>>>>> Leuven in
which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating quality of
life
in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific >>>>>>>>>>>> studies, with
the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact >>>>>>>>>>>> that mass
3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though that's true, under
Belgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it. >>>>>>>>>>>
As if that makes any difference with regard to the fundamental >>>>>>>>>> authoritarianism involved here.
"You can speak the truth, but only the truths pre-approved by the >>>>>>>>>> state."
You're right, that's not nearly as bad.
Note that if, as you suggest, it's aYes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal. >>>>>>>>>>
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive >>>>>>>>>> negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than >>>>>>>>>> what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never >>>>>>>>>> made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as >>>>>>>>>> authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that >>>>>>>>>> they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're >>>>>>>>>> locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a >>>>>>>>> cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the >>>>>>>>> most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it? >>>>>>>>
Others point to defamation as a limitation on free speech, but it's really
not. You're still free to speak, and the government still can't punish you
for
it, but if you defame someone, you may have to bear some civil (monetary)
consequences to them for your transgression.
In the U.S. the only other exception to free speech is obscenity, which
is a
vague term on its own, but which in practice has been limited to child
pornography and bestiality.
I'm pretty cool with all that.
Would it be okay, say in Mississippi, to post a compendium of horrifying
black-on-white crimes along with a brochure about one-way trips to >>>>>>> Kenya?
Yes.
I'm guessing some judge might disallow such a collection of
"facts" as incitement to racial discord. Would he be wrong?
A judge in Europe might do that, perhaps. But any judge in America should be
well aware that 250 years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence dictates that he
has
no authority whatsoever to 'disallow' the publication of a book of >>>>>> historical
facts regardless of its effects on race relations.
Seems to raise the question of whether (e.g.) "Remember the Alamo!" is >>>>> an historical fact or a dog whistle.
Dog whistles (and pig sirens and dolphin chirps) are all protected 1st >>>> Amendment speech.
And I'm not sure why the former
should invariably grant safe passage to the latter.
Because the 1st Amendment and the 250+ years of jurisprudence that
illuminates
it says so.
Well, the "incitement to imminent lawless action" (which seems to be
what's is at issue here)
Brandenburg is not implicated in your scenario because a published book
fails the 'imminent' prong of the Brandenburg test.
I doubt that "imminent" carries an expiration date. E.g., "as soon as humanly possible" would seem a practical equivalence.
On May 31, 2026 at 8:59:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/31/2026 6:18 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/30/2026 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 30, 2026 at 8:20:54 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/29/2026 11:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 6:52:49 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/29/2026 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:True and direct threats of violence to others have always been punishable.
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 5/27/2026 7:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Dries van Langenhove, former Belgium MP, has been arrested again. ThisAfaics, his legal guilt lies in his choice of which "truth" to >>>>>>>>>>>> broadcast, not in its verity.
time
for telling the truth. He gave a lecture at Catholic University >>>>>>>>>>>>> Leuven in
which he linked mass migration to crime and a deteriorating quality of
life
in
Belgium. He cited government crime statistics and scientific >>>>>>>>>>>>> studies, with
the
bulk of his argument consisting of the manifestly provable fact >>>>>>>>>>>>> that mass
3rd-world migration exacerbates crime. Even though that's true, under
Belgium's "anti-racism" law, you're not allowed to say it. >>>>>>>>>>>>
As if that makes any difference with regard to the fundamental >>>>>>>>>>> authoritarianism involved here.
"You can speak the truth, but only the truths pre-approved by the >>>>>>>>>>> state."
You're right, that's not nearly as bad.
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive
negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than >>>>>>>>>>> what the
government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least
they
were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never
made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a
real
bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that >>>>>>>>>>> they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're
locking
you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a
cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should*
govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it? >>>>>>>>>
Others point to defamation as a limitation on free speech, but it's really
not. You're still free to speak, and the government still can't punish you
for
it, but if you defame someone, you may have to bear some civil (monetary)
consequences to them for your transgression.
In the U.S. the only other exception to free speech is obscenity, which
is a
vague term on its own, but which in practice has been limited to child
pornography and bestiality.
I'm pretty cool with all that.
Would it be okay, say in Mississippi, to post a compendium of horrifying
black-on-white crimes along with a brochure about one-way trips to >>>>>>>> Kenya?
Yes.
I'm guessing some judge might disallow such a collection of
"facts" as incitement to racial discord. Would he be wrong?
A judge in Europe might do that, perhaps. But any judge in America should be
well aware that 250 years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence dictates that he
has
no authority whatsoever to 'disallow' the publication of a book of >>>>>>> historical
facts regardless of its effects on race relations.
Seems to raise the question of whether (e.g.) "Remember the Alamo!" is >>>>>> an historical fact or a dog whistle.
Dog whistles (and pig sirens and dolphin chirps) are all protected 1st >>>>> Amendment speech.
And I'm not sure why the former
should invariably grant safe passage to the latter.
Because the 1st Amendment and the 250+ years of jurisprudence that >>>>> illuminates
it says so.
Well, the "incitement to imminent lawless action" (which seems to be >>>> what's is at issue here)
Brandenburg is not implicated in your scenario because a published book >>> fails the 'imminent' prong of the Brandenburg test.
I doubt that "imminent" carries an expiration date. E.g., "as soon as
humanly possible" would seem a practical equivalence.
Cases subsequent to Brandenburg have interpreted 'imminent' to mean exactly what it says: the lawless action must occur so close in time to the speech at issue to be in conjunction with it. A published book cannot satisfy that criteria. Brandenburg literally requires a scenario where a guy stands before a crowd and says, "Let's go kill that guy!" or "Let's burn that store down"! and then immediately leads the crowd to do just that. Speaking in the form of a book that takes months to publish, then delivered to stores, then sits on the shelf for however long, doesn't satisfy the imminency requirement.
On 5/31/2026 3:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 31, 2026 at 8:59:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 5/31/2026 6:18 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
Brandenburg is not implicated in your scenario because a published book >>>> fails the 'imminent' prong of the Brandenburg test.
I doubt that "imminent" carries an expiration date. E.g., "as soon as
humanly possible" would seem a practical equivalence.
Cases subsequent to Brandenburg have interpreted 'imminent' to mean exactly >> what it says: the lawless action must occur so close in time to the speech >> at
issue to be in conjunction with it. A published book cannot satisfy that
criteria. Brandenburg literally requires a scenario where a guy stands
before
a crowd and says, "Let's go kill that guy!" or "Let's burn that store down"!
and then immediately leads the crowd to do just that. Speaking in the form >> of
a book that takes months to publish, then delivered to stores, then sits on >> the shelf for however long, doesn't satisfy the imminency requirement.
Fwiw, I didn't intend something so asynchronous as a "published book",
but rather an online post, whose effect can be as immediate as a
stem-winder in Hyde Park.
Again, though, we come up against the fact that few (if any) words do
have an exact meaning. E.g., is a threat to dynamite the town library
not "imminent" if the fuse is 3 hours long?
On May 31, 2026 at 1:17:45 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/31/2026 3:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 31, 2026 at 8:59:00 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 5/31/2026 6:18 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
Brandenburg is not implicated in your scenario because a published book
fails the 'imminent' prong of the Brandenburg test.
I doubt that "imminent" carries an expiration date. E.g., "as soon as >>>> humanly possible" would seem a practical equivalence.
Cases subsequent to Brandenburg have interpreted 'imminent' to mean exactly
what it says: the lawless action must occur so close in time to the speech
at
issue to be in conjunction with it. A published book cannot satisfy that >>> criteria. Brandenburg literally requires a scenario where a guy stands >>> before
a crowd and says, "Let's go kill that guy!" or "Let's burn that store down"!
and then immediately leads the crowd to do just that. Speaking in the form
of
a book that takes months to publish, then delivered to stores, then sits on
the shelf for however long, doesn't satisfy the imminency requirement.
Fwiw, I didn't intend something so asynchronous as a "published book",
but rather an online post, whose effect can be as immediate as a
stem-winder in Hyde Park.
Even that would fail the imminency test 99% of the time. Unless the government
can prove the person read the post and reacted with violence within seconds of
the poster hitting the send button, the lawless action is not legally imminent.
And the remoteness of the speech to the lawless action is also a factor. Some lower court cases have held that someone speaking on TV in one place can't be held responsible for another's reaction to it thousands of miles away. The Supreme Court, to my knowledge, hasn't clarified this, however.
Again, though, we come up against the fact that few (if any) words do
have an exact meaning. E.g., is a threat to dynamite the town library
not "imminent" if the fuse is 3 hours long?
Setting a bomb in a library and lighting the fuse isn't a threat no matter how
long it is. That's an action, not speech.
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to
sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western
nations"
have made it a crime to object to public policies that have massive negative
impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything different than what the >> government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least they >> were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they never made any
pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected would have a real >> bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as
authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that they're not
executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're free,
open,
and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even as they're locking >> you
up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should* govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
On May 29, 2026 at 3:20:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 5/28/2026 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 28, 2026 at 2:30:36 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
Note that if, as you suggest, it's a
truth that "everyone knows", then what he's actually doing is akin to >>>>sloganeering ...for a cause that, for better or worse, is illegal.
Yes, the governments in these supposedly "democratic and free Western >>>nations" have made it a crime to object to public policies that have >>>massive negative impacts on the people, or to advocate for anything >>>different than what the government is doing.
We've always had authoritarian governments and dictators, but at least >>>they were honest about it. The Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot... they
never made any pretense that what they said goes and anyone who objected >>>would have a real bad day.
But now we have all these Western governments, who are every bit as >>>authoritarian as those listed above (the only difference is that they're >>>not executing dissidents... yet), but at the same time insist they're >>>free, open, and democratic societies who treasure free speech. Even
as they're locking you up for saying anything they don't like.
No one wants authoritarianism, or feels that he promotes it. But a >>cut-to-the-chase question here is, e.g.,: what speech, if any, *should* >>govt. have the power to prohibit or punish? And if none, what's the
most extreme example that you can think of to illustrate it?
https://ibb.co/0pZV9NcP
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 176:16:36 |
| Calls: | 218 |
| Files: | 21,503 |
| Messages: | 81,788 |