Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "The Age of Unlightenment | DIRECT MESSAGE | Rubin Report" video.

  1. tom paine Getting a conviction against a person who has asked around to hire a contract killer is almost impossible. That's because it can be argued that the intention is vague and that the direct threat of harm has not been specified. It's not until the hiring is complete, a contract has been reached, that a crime has been committed. That's when the target has been specified and details worked out and a conspiracy is in place and intention to commit harm can be established. It's wasn't the speech that's the crime. It's the completion of a contract that is the crime. It's the "shouting fire in a theatre" argument. In that case, the speech has been weaponised, used as direct means to cause harm. It's similar to the crime of inciting a riot. Speech is used to directly incite violence against person(s) or property. The ability to speak is something that is inherent to all and to use it freely is an absolute right, unless it is the weapon to cause direct and imminent harm. No different that owning a baseball bat. We all have the right to own one and to use it to see fit. However, we cannot use it as a weapon. Our right to free speech is no different than our right to a baseball bat.
    7