[rgblambda]

In the 1950s, the Reverend Ian Paisley would organise rallies in the streets of Belfast and when speaking at those rallies, read out the addresses of Catholic homes and businesses on those streets. The crowd would then attack those homes and businesses.

[ImJamal]

I don't know the exact context or what was said, but I know one thing the words didn't attack somebody. People attacked people and property.

[rgblambda]

"No officer. I didn't smash the window. It was the bat I was swinging. You should arrest the bat".

People were sentenced to death at Nuremberg for giving orders, written and spoken.

It's well established in every legal jurisdiction that individuals are responsible for the words they use.

[ImJamal]

If there is a direct call to action then they should be held responsible, but like I said I don't know what the context is or what was said in the Belfast situation.

The words the Nazis said were irrelevant. They directed people to kill and as such they were guilty.

I think someone who goes and attacks somebody is guilty. They cannot use the excuse they were following orders. The words didn't take control of them like a spell. They made the conscious choice to commit violence and as such the guilt is on them, not the bat.

[rgblambda]

>If there is a direct call to action then they should be held responsible

>They directed people to kill and as such they were guilty.

I'm glad we finally reached an agreement that people can and should be held criminally responsible for their words.

>They cannot use the excuse they were following orders.

Good, though that's not what was being argued. I think you knew that though.