If he’s an accessory to murder then prosecute him for that. I have some trouble with some of the application of RICO laws, but if he is part of a criminal gang of some sort, go for it.

But I am not a fan of the CCR’s decision to sue him for being “the go-to guy” and the “man with the plan”. What the hell kinda accusation is that, any way? They accept his right to his views, just not his wish to wish see them implemented?

But behind the disagreements stated here are more basic disagreements that we are not discussing. Probably because they are not fully developed on either side and would be incendiary if expressed.

But in addition to objecting to CCR, I object to the line of thinking that goes something like this:

There are inherent human rights that transcend borders, cultures, and even the collective will of the people. One such inherent human right is for there not to be restrictions on homosexual people that are not similarly placed on heterosexual people.

And its corrolary:

Ideas which are in contradiction to the application of universal human rights are inherently criminal and those who express such ideas should be punished.

I personally believe that there are inalienable rights for individuals. I do not believe that there are inherent human rights for groups beyond those that flow from individual rights (assembly, petition).

And I adamantly oppose the notion that the rights of groups supercede the rights of individuals.

I know that this is not a shared view. But it is mine.

Yes exactly. Americans value the prohibition of libel over free speech. Canadians value the prohibition of calling for death over free speech.

I’m sure you appreciate the place where you have drawn the line between protected and forbidden speech. We appreciate the different place where we have drawn the line. The UK has a whole other place where their line in drawn as does Sweden.

And as long as we allow others to have differing values than our own then there’s no problem. The world is too complex to come up with absolutist answers that fit everyone.

Of course that doesn’t mean that you and I and the Brits and Swedes can’t jointly object to the place where Uganda has drawn the line and the motivations behind their doing so.

Both Canadians and Americans value free speech – just as we share many values.

However, Canadians (on the whole) value the absence of speech that calls for the death of minorities over free speech and Americans (on the whole) do not. And so Canadians have made that exception and Americans have not.

That is one of our cultural differences.

It seems the filing is similar to being an accessory to murder. Lively helped construct a social matrix that resulted in LGBT deaths beatings interogations and a general sense of unrest evil doings etc ….. and they may or may not have to prove he knew such would happen. That would seem to fall into “crimes against humanity”. It seems you are talking more of lighter offenses, I.e. someone told someone I was gay and now i’ve lost friends etc.
That is different motivation than murder.
I’m wondering how this analogy of an agenda to kill, might fit with your model of free speech. It seems Lively may have had both going on at once, freely speaking while conspiring to, on the DL, kill the gays, which is illegal.
It doesn’t seem this action would be happening lest it goes much further than free speech.

Advocating for a minority to be put to death should be illegal in the U.S. as it is in Canada. Americans will often get indignant about free speech and how if Americans aren’t allowed to advocate for executing gays their civilization will crumble yet somehow in Canada despite that being against the law the apocalypse has yet to happen.

Yes, Americans do value free speech differently than Canadians.

But it isn’t that we fear that if we give up free speech then civilization will crumble. Rather, we fear that if we give up free speech then we wont have free speech.

I am also well familiar with Stanley Kurtz’s lies about Scandinavia and they have thoroughly been debunked.

Yes, thank you. And not just on blog sites but in a court of law with witnesses sworn to truth under oath. One of the many side benefits of Perry.

And Jesop, as Priya Lynn could tell you, the vast overwhelming majority of AIDS cases in Uganda were contracted through heterosexual sex. Your focus on gay people is a bit like solving global climate change by banning the burning of menorah candles on Hanukkah: irrelevant, counter-productive, and scapegoating.