|
|
|
|
|
|
by repolfx
2641 days ago
|
|
|
In a democracy, random citizens can take over the government by winning elections. So where do you draw the line - if someone were to perceive an external threat where others were unwilling to speak up, and campaigned for election on that basis, would they get locked up? You'd make it so a government that was insufficiently prioritising self defence couldn't self correct. This isn't a theoretical concern. Winston Churchill is an example of a politician who was warning of the dangers of Nazi Germany much earlier than other people were, he was nearly alone in the beginning at a time when other politicians were trying to make peace with Hitler or were openly unconcerned. Your proposal could easily have criminalised Churchill at the time when Britain needed him most. |
|
|
However, I think there is a distinction between war as a political platform, and incitement of violence. Even when Churchill campaigned for war, he campaigned for the United Kingdom to wage war. He was calling for something that is legal.
The people who inspire the terrorists are not just campaigning for lawful war. They are inciting the masses to commit violence against civilians.
We should be able to differentiate Churchill and Bin Laden.
When it comes down to it, there will always be a situation in which a law makes the right thing illegal. Drunk driving a dying person to the hospital in an emergency is illegal but it's not always wrong. I think laws should aim to maximize benefit and minimize harm rather than stay ideologically pure.
In that light I think in this day and age, it's much more important to disable the ISISs, the KKKs, and other inciters, than it is to enable the Churchills. It's a value judgment here, but how many Churchills are we expecting in the next 100 years? Because terrorists are here right now.