The first thing I want to dig into is a quick list of what incitement to violence or incitement of violence may include both directly and indirectly, both specifically related issues and also vaguely connected subjects which may be more indirect or potentially and possibly too unrelated or too generic.

---

Incitement might be correlated with the following:
Arson
Violence
Trafficking
Abortion
COVID VACCINES
Capitol punishment
Animal slaughter
Abuse
Neglect

---

This list of related topics may not be exhaustive but this is a good starting point. Some people may say that some of these items are not relevant enough or related enough. I don't have time right now to talk about each of the items on this list. I'm also choosing not to add more items to this extremely incomplete list.

---

Regardless of whether or not this list may be accurate enough, one of my main points of bringing all of this up is to simply demonstrate how overly vague incitement can be in some situations. For the record, I will not say incitement is good or bad. Well, let me clarify, I have to say it depends on a wide series of variables. That is the lawyer inside me talking.

---

One of my concerns is not in justifying calls to acts of violence in order to help leftists burn down more cities like they did during the summer of love back in 2020. Instead, my concern is more so in the process of taking people to court. Specifically in the United States, that has to do with the 5th and 6th amendments. One of my concerns lies in the value of having free speech. However, another big concern is in the value of private property rights, that is land ownership rights. More on that later.

---

The second thing I wanted to dive into today was regarding why I would favor not banning or forbidding incitement to violence in some settings.

---

In some online and offline settings which may claim absolute free speech, they should probably not ban or forbid or censor or anything else incitement, hate speech, and maybe a few other things. Now, I'm only talking about certain places both in real life and on the Internet where you might find public town squares which should probably have total and complete free speech. But I will not say where these places may or may not be. I can speak theoretically or hypothetically to say that if a place is either totally public or totally in favor of protecting all forms of free speech, then those may be places that should allow for incitement, for hate speech, etc. Now, this might be more applicable to places that promises free speech with no exceptions which some people might have said they thought Facebook was a platform, as Mark Zuckerberg put it many years ago, "FOR ALL IDEAS." I guess we would have to study their rules, laws, acts, codes, policies, guidelines, terms of service, before commenting farther. We would have to debate whether or not Facebook was a platform and/or a publisher and/or whatever else.

---

A quick disclaimer. Even if a website allowed for incitement, hypothetically speaking, that should not get in the way of the court. If I go on my website to tell people to kill your dog, if somebody does, then take me to court. I could say I had the freedom to say it. But judges and jurors might find me guilty. I would also say don't delete what I wrote or said in articles, in videos, etc. Why? Two reasons. One, if it is private property, then you can't steal it. I try not to steal stuff by the way. Oh, perhaps an ISP could say they will choose not to share my website with their customers. And if the customers don't want a curated Internet that is censored, they could complain, find other ISPs, etc. But number two, don't delete my stuff because it might be evidence of potential crimes or whatever. So, if you delete it, then how do we know what I am being accused of doing? And how do I know that the evidence is not being tampered with, edited, altered, etc, if it doesn't stay online? I prefer transparency, integrity.

---

Public offline places probably should allow for free speech to the extent of whatever is agreed upon in the laws and everything else which may apply to the jurisdiction or jurisdictions legally from the local, state, federal, international, corporate, military, etc, level or levels. In other words, it might be possible that a city may have crazy laws banning incitement to violence of all forms on public property, land, buildings, town halls, parks, wildlife, schools, government buildings, state capitol buildings, and whatever else that might be paid for by the tax-payers.

---

That takes me back to the value of private property rights. I should have the right to do what I want on my land to the extent I'm not directly or excessively harming others right now or potentially too immediately in the near-future. In other words, legally speaking, some things might be too imminent. So, without explanation, I should have the right to ask you to vacate my property. I could say you were inciting violence or picking your nose. I could make up any excuses I wanted or have some good reasons why I wanted you to exit off my farm.

---

That line of logic should apply to private property on the world wide web which we don't have time to get into right now as that is an extremely tricky subject to dissect because the Internet is simultaneously an interconnected Matrix of both privately and publicly owned networks that intersects into and out of and through a wide variety of legal jurisdictions. Things on the Internet are store on computer servers in multiple countries which means multiple jurisdictions. You have to think like a judge or a juror. Data on the Internet is constantly copied, mirrored, cached, backed up, uploaded, downloaded, upstreamed, downstreamed, seeded, etc, some of it without your consent, some of it happens without your awareness. For example, governments, corporations, etc, have been caught over the years violating copyright, patents, trademarks, etc. Often times, things pop up in the news but some people are not dissecting what it all means and it is rather complex and some of it is nuance and a variation of things. Facebook has, is, will, or at least can scan and copy and store your private messages, photos, video calls, etc. Same thing with YouTube, Google, Gmail, Twitter, Instagram, your ISP, the CIA (according to people like Edward Snowden), big tech in general, different governments, countries, nations, agencies, organizations, corporations, companies, clubs, groups, secret societies, non-profit organizations, some rich people, super computer, giant data centers, etc.

---

I bring up the craziness of the Internet to say that laws are sometimes not equally applied. They have rules but then don't follow them. But they make you follow them. That is crazy. That is irony. That is hypocrisy. That is a wide variety of things which we don't have time to get into right now. I always try to bring up some of these things to say that people are not using logic to think through the legal framework in order to analyze everything. We can see how lopsided it has been.

---

For example, many if not all the people involved in burning down cities in the summer of 2020 in America, in killing people, in billions of dollars worth of property damages, were released out of jail after only a few hours for many of them who would have their charges dropped.

---

Meanwhile, over 500 people were arrested for Jan6. Oddly, FBI, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Qanon Quacks, and others, were caught on camera dressing up as Trump supporters in order to lead other people into the U.S. Capitol building. A few hundred people out of over a million people were marching towards the building. Alex Jones was telling them not to go in but some of them could not hear him. Police refused to tell them not to go in. A few people were a little violent. But most of the people in prison today didn't commit any crimes. I've been writing stories on this.

---

My stance has generally been to not ban incitement. Instead, I simply want to encourage people to take people to court. So, for example, take me to a courtroom and convince the judges, the jurors, that I said things and/or did things which directly and/or directly resulted in damages in some form or another. Maybe somebody died. Maybe people burn down your house. Maybe some guys came in and stole your television. Maybe some people came to you and started beating you up.

---

If you can get judges and jurors to agree that I was directly or maybe indirectly responsibly enough, then perhaps I should be sentenced, fined, imprisoned, etc, whatever the appropriate punishment or punishments should be assuming the legal system is not too corrupt regarding the people and especially in regards to whether laws and everything is in an enough of an alignment with natural law and things of that nature.

---

I have a similar stance on abortion. Don't ban abortion, the killing of fetuses, a group of cells which so happens to have a beating heart, babies, small people. So, for example, if I kill your baby somehow, then take me to court and try to prove to the judges, the jurors, that I killed your baby. Fathers can take mothers to trial. Perhaps go after doctors, nurses, etc. My concern is in going after a crime after it is completed and not until then. But some people want pre-crime and pre-trial sentencing which we might see in movies like Minority Report and Judge Dredd to name a few. Oh, and by the way, I really do not want to send tax dollars towards funding abortions and Planned Parenthood. Start a "LET'S MURDER MY BABY GO-FUND ME PAGE AND PARTY or send your baby off to an orphanage to be the next Orphan Annie or Problem Child. People can adopt your unwanted babies. But I don't want to be forced to help pay for the killing of your babies.

---

Watch out for the slippery slope. You can try to ban the KKK today, then remove Alex Jones, then erase your mom, then terminate other people you don't like, and then tear down these statues, and then burn these books over here. Like, ban porn ok. And eradicate hate speech, spam, all forms of porn, nudity, bad words, blasphemy, incitement to violence, calls to acts of violence, etc. We can forbid one thing today. We can ban and disallow more things the next day. And then the next day, even more. It can become a slippery slope where more and more is blacklisted.

---

It becomes dangerous and can become harder and harder to draw and see the line if you are always moving that line. But I am not saying don't make lines. I'm saying be careful. Also, people should take people to court and expose them in the court of public opinion. For example, if I'm telling people to kill your dog too much, too often, then everyone should expose me and boycott me. Tell my family. Tell my employers. Pressure them. Take me to court if you can but also simply let everyone know how much of a jerk I am. If somebody kills your dog someday, then you may choose to take me to court. Perhaps I will be found guilty of motivating whoever to kill your dog or maybe not. But we should value the process and put some trust in the process to the extent the legal system isn't already too corrupted with bad judges and everything else. God help us when that happens.

---

In my rant here, I just wanted to throw out a few of my concerns. For the record, I don't like incitement. But I also don't like censorship. But at the same time, censorship on private property might not be censorship. So, it always depends on a series of interconnected factors and issues and concerns and jurisdictions through the process of taking people to different types of courts, trials. We should emphasize more on the value of the process. Make the process of pursuing justice great again.

---

---

---