Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Taostic Aesthetics wrote:You see the thing with freedom in my opinion is that freedom implies you do not harm others. The NAP is a good measuring point.
Whistleblowing shouldn't be illegal.
Shouting bomb in a crowded place shouldn't be illegal either, but you should be liable for the consequences.
tl;dr Geert Wilders asked his public whether they wanted less or more morrocans - crowd reacted with less less less, whereupon he reacted with ''we'll take care of that''.
He got fined afaik and found guilty of inciting hatred - which in my opinion, did not happen.
So, you're saying there should be limits based on harm done to others. A freedom doesn't imply that you don't harm others, that's an external limit.
So, no criminal persecution, then, for someone who knowingly endangered the lives of others? Just because he used his voice?
What about causing a run on the banks?
I repeat - shouting ''bomb'' shouldn't be illegal in itself. He can be liable for the results.
I bet the banks can sue the hell out of such a person, so hence I assume someone will not be stupid enough to say something. If he does - he goes bankrupt.