Yeah, but still - the elephant.

The beeb. Interviewees were both pro-Israeli and representatives of different Palastinian groups; what could not be distinguished between them was the playground line of blaming the other for their own behaviour.

In the days following the October attacks, the media was filled with spokespeople repeatedly delivering the line, “look what they made us do”.

It comes to the same conclusion regarding the illegality of the weapons, even if it’s pretty lenient in its interpretation of how thousands of devices can be “reasonably expected” to all end up in the hands of combatants.

That’s not how legal jurisdiction works in the EU. Member states are still sovereign; if you’re liable for something in France and you get off a plane in Germany then France still needs to ask Germany nicely, and sans an extraditable conviction nothing is likely to come of it.

He’s not smart enough. More like the Grand Negus.

Experience. For what it’s worth, the instinct I distrust is absolutism.

I think it’s like the distinction between art and obscenity; it’s not a nuanced distinction in the case in question. If it were, I’d largely trust UK courts to get it right (they are by-and-large capable of this, and much less politicised than their US counterparts).

I think unqualified freedom to say anything can lead to negative utility, pragmatically speaking. Malicious lies bring less than nothing to discourse.

I’m concerned that the libel system can be abused, of course; and I don’t approve of arresting octogenerians under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for shouting “nonsense!” at Jack Straw. But I don’t see there being a need to draw a distinction between online and in person speech, and I think that incitement to riot isn’t something I’d typically defend.

Having said that: I hope the woman in question (who has a history of being a deniable pot-stirrer) gets a trial rather than copping a plea, because the bounds of these things are worth testing.

In which case, perhaps unqualified “freedom of speech” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

(I appreciate that Chomsky’s opinion resonates more with 1968 than now.)

Have you seen pictures of the sub? What makes you think the wiring was all hidden?

You joke, but watch this:

https://archive.org/details/take-me-to-titanic

from 29 minutes in. A last-minute adjustment before launch plugged in a thruster backwards; no protocol to check the behaviour prelaunch. They doscovered it when they got to the bottom.

Was at the time (as per usual).

Cf. previous comments about dogwhistles.

I think you’re spitting the situation on the wrong horn of Jefferson’s dilemma. They have the freedom to speak. It comes with the danger of being arrested if that speech meets the requirements of being an exhortation to violence.

I take it that you can see a distinction between “Vance fucks couches” and “burn those people in their hotel”. They are not the same thing.

If the distinction is hard to determine - that’s why there’s a judicial process.

Look up the original judgement on the Maya Forstater tribunal. “In a functioning democracy, some beliefs are not worthy of respect,” or words to that effect. If you think inciting racist riots shouldn’t be criminal, then write to your MP about it.

That’s the thing about dog-whistles.

The defence you posit is the same as a politician chosing words carefully to imply one thing, while technically not lying: for aome reason they think that’s a defence, but were a six-year-old try it they’d be straight off to the naughty step.

She lit a fire which was fanned by agents provocateurs from outside the country (ie, Farrage and Yaxley-Lennon). The useful idiots picked it up and rioted with it.

That’d be Dame Cressida Dick, later promoted to Commissioner of the Met.