Some Discordcel alerted me to the following CuckTears post from two weeks ago, where a few former .is members discussed rape and vigilantism on a separate forum.
First of all, let me say that JosefMengelecel is not someone I like. He was banned from .is several months ago, and rightly so. But the requirements of the First Amendment are crystal clear. The FBI cannot arrest him for writing this:
Nevertheless, soycucks started screeching:
Oh, man. With every new post, their ignorance plumbs new depths.
Dissecting JosefMengelecel's speech
It's certainly a bizarre monologue. But JosefMengelecel never directed any person to commit illegal activity. Nor did he say that he was going to commit illegal activity. Depending on the specificity and context of said speech, the former would possibly be "incitement", the latter would possibly be a "true threat"; but his speech falls in neither category.
Rather, JosefMengelecel abstractly suggests that "rape should be properly legalized", and that rape victims and their "cuck[ed]" relatives should be "publicly tortured" should rapists be harmed. Here, he is merely engaging in political speech, expressing his viewpoint on a public policy issue. His viewpoint is that governments should not criminalize rape, but should instead protect the physical safety of rapists, and cruelly punish those who harm rapists.
Applying the First Amendment to JosefMengelecel's speech
JosefMengelecel's viewpoint is certainly unconventional. But the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevent the FBI from arresting him for expressing it. It is his fundamental right to express this viewpoint. This is not a legally contested issue; this has been clearly established for a few decades now.
Generally speaking, constitutional law classifies government actions regulating speech as either "content-neutral" regulations (i.e. the time, place, and manner of speech) or "content-based" regulations (i.e. what can and cannot be said). The latter is held to a higher degree of, or "strict", scrutiny. A subgroup of content-based regulation is viewpoint-based regulation, where the government discriminates against speakers based on the specific perspective of their speech.
Because, as the Supreme Court stated thusly, "Giving offense is a viewpoint," Matal v. Tam 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1763 (2017), the most important takeaway from case law addressing viewpoint-based regulation is that the First Amendment equally protects unpopular or even hateful speech as it protects socially desirable speech.
To say that the judiciary is extremely skeptical of viewpoint discrimination would be an understatement. Generally, the government is not allowed to "impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects," R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391 (1992). “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) (Holding that the First Amendment protects the right to burn the U.S. flag.) "[W]e have indicated that in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment." Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357, 373 (1997) (Quoting Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 322 (1988); internal quotations omitted).
Any reasonable person who understands First Amendment jurisprudence consequently recognizes that Josefmengelecel has every right to express his opinion that rape should be decriminalized; just as a Redditor has the same right to express its opinion that alleged rapists should be publicly executed without a trial. On a similar note, a meme that says "I support beating the shit out of pedophiles" is not entitled to greater constitutional protection compared to a hypothetical meme that says "I support beating the shit out of feminists." The unpopularity or offensiveness of the ideas being expressed is irrelevant.
"But what about social justice and m'lady?"
The most prevalent (yet unsound) argument proffered by normies on the question of "misogyny" is that:
P1) "Hateful" speech is harmful to femoids; and
P2) The government has a compelling interest to prevent harm;
C) Therefore, the FBI should suppress "hateful" speech and arrest you silly inkwells!
But the U.S. Constitution's answer is clear: No. The government is generally not permitted to redistribute the social costs of "harmful" speech from a listener to a speaker by punishing the speaker.
The FBI isn't a cabal of moral philosophers tasked to strike a normatively desirable balance between a misguided understanding of "social justice" and incels' civil liberties; they're a law enforcement agency tasked to enforce the law as it is written. And though the law excepts certain "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech" Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571 (1942), from First Amendment protection, none of those categories applies to JosefMengelecel's political speech.
First of all, let me say that JosefMengelecel is not someone I like. He was banned from .is several months ago, and rightly so. But the requirements of the First Amendment are crystal clear. The FBI cannot arrest him for writing this:
Nevertheless, soycucks started screeching:
Oh, man. With every new post, their ignorance plumbs new depths.
Dissecting JosefMengelecel's speech
It's certainly a bizarre monologue. But JosefMengelecel never directed any person to commit illegal activity. Nor did he say that he was going to commit illegal activity. Depending on the specificity and context of said speech, the former would possibly be "incitement", the latter would possibly be a "true threat"; but his speech falls in neither category.
Rather, JosefMengelecel abstractly suggests that "rape should be properly legalized", and that rape victims and their "cuck[ed]" relatives should be "publicly tortured" should rapists be harmed. Here, he is merely engaging in political speech, expressing his viewpoint on a public policy issue. His viewpoint is that governments should not criminalize rape, but should instead protect the physical safety of rapists, and cruelly punish those who harm rapists.
Applying the First Amendment to JosefMengelecel's speech
JosefMengelecel's viewpoint is certainly unconventional. But the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevent the FBI from arresting him for expressing it. It is his fundamental right to express this viewpoint. This is not a legally contested issue; this has been clearly established for a few decades now.
Generally speaking, constitutional law classifies government actions regulating speech as either "content-neutral" regulations (i.e. the time, place, and manner of speech) or "content-based" regulations (i.e. what can and cannot be said). The latter is held to a higher degree of, or "strict", scrutiny. A subgroup of content-based regulation is viewpoint-based regulation, where the government discriminates against speakers based on the specific perspective of their speech.
Because, as the Supreme Court stated thusly, "Giving offense is a viewpoint," Matal v. Tam 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1763 (2017), the most important takeaway from case law addressing viewpoint-based regulation is that the First Amendment equally protects unpopular or even hateful speech as it protects socially desirable speech.
To say that the judiciary is extremely skeptical of viewpoint discrimination would be an understatement. Generally, the government is not allowed to "impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects," R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391 (1992). “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) (Holding that the First Amendment protects the right to burn the U.S. flag.) "[W]e have indicated that in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment." Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357, 373 (1997) (Quoting Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 322 (1988); internal quotations omitted).
Any reasonable person who understands First Amendment jurisprudence consequently recognizes that Josefmengelecel has every right to express his opinion that rape should be decriminalized; just as a Redditor has the same right to express its opinion that alleged rapists should be publicly executed without a trial. On a similar note, a meme that says "I support beating the shit out of pedophiles" is not entitled to greater constitutional protection compared to a hypothetical meme that says "I support beating the shit out of feminists." The unpopularity or offensiveness of the ideas being expressed is irrelevant.
"But what about social justice and m'lady?"
The most prevalent (yet unsound) argument proffered by normies on the question of "misogyny" is that:
P1) "Hateful" speech is harmful to femoids; and
P2) The government has a compelling interest to prevent harm;
C) Therefore, the FBI should suppress "hateful" speech and arrest you silly inkwells!
But the U.S. Constitution's answer is clear: No. The government is generally not permitted to redistribute the social costs of "harmful" speech from a listener to a speaker by punishing the speaker.
The FBI isn't a cabal of moral philosophers tasked to strike a normatively desirable balance between a misguided understanding of "social justice" and incels' civil liberties; they're a law enforcement agency tasked to enforce the law as it is written. And though the law excepts certain "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech" Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571 (1942), from First Amendment protection, none of those categories applies to JosefMengelecel's political speech.
@Zensfy @-BrettyBoy- @Infinity @Fat Link @FrothySolutions @JoeBruhcel @trying to ascend @SlayerSlayer @Rhaast @ilieknothing @IncelHQ @Lycan @Steiner Ex Machina @Lv99_BixNood @Wellington @based_meme @Mecoja @Arthas93 @fast_curry @Misanthropy1 @ThoughtfulCel @MarquisDeSade @erenyeager
Last edited:
