https://youtu.be/LAK_NvqfyV0?si=p0ogfQ2qVnEvjOwJ

you live in a nanny state, and your requirements for incitement are alarmingly low.
First of all, Speech is not a qualified right, it is inalienable. You aren't using the same definition of Speech, legally or philosophically, as is used in the US. Speech is any form of communication that expresses ideas, opinions, beliefs, or advocacy, even and especially when offensive. Calls to action are statements communicated in order to elicit direct response. In the U.S., this is only illegal in extremely slim circumstances, because we're somewhat civilized over here and we don't try to oppress people for wrongthink. Incitement generally requires 3 elements: Intent, Imminence, and Likelihood. This is based off of the Supreme Court's ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. Most messages posted on social media will almost never meet the two latter requirements, intent is also somewhat difficult to prove. The Crowded Theatre has always been a red herring; the crime in shouting 'fire' in that setting has always been the act of giving people reason to believe their lives are in danger, causing panic that injures others, with the intent on causing mayhem, knowing full well that mayhem is highly likely as a consequence. If you can't grasp the difference between a call to violent, imminent action, and someone merely being offensive on the internet, you should probably shut your mouth before a tyrant clamps their hand around it. though no doubt that's what you'd deserve for advocating so enthusiastically for the State.

---

I really appreciate your maturity and patience. You've helped keep me in check and think rationally before engaging emotionally. If you'd prefer not to read or respond to my soliloquy, I understand.

1. I have a tremendous amount of respect for many aspects of the British common law tradition; many of the founding principles of the United States are fruit of the same tree. I appreciate any system insofar as its principles afford me liberty.

Anyhow, yes, I don't believe that Intent should be the sole element of disqualification for Natural Rights. I don't think people *should* make calls to illegal and/or violent action, but no harm, no foul. Your system detains and prosecutes people regardless of outcome or risk (imminence/likelihood), and I reckon that's a massive abuse of powers.

I wouldn't necessarily call Peterson or Musk Right-Wing? I think the entire left-right political dichotomy is worthless as a whole without concrete definitions, in any case. Peterson, Musk, and Rogan align highly with Classical Liberals, or Libertarians as we call them over here. Though that's just minutiae. However, considering the American Liberal vantage point, it seems a little more absurd to me that you're denying there's a problem at *all*. From our POV, we tend to be quite hesitant with wielding the State as a weapon against *anybody*, even and especially protecting political and offensive speech. This makes sense considering the differences in the State's philosophical undergurdings, but let's contrast a couple UK cases and see how our laws would generally rule:

1. Julian Foulkes (2023) 71yo ex-bobby posts a tweet criticizing pro-Palestinian activism.
    - USA: Political speech is particularly protected under free speech. No incitement case to be made; no intent, imminence, or likelihood.
    - UK: Prosecution via Malicious Communications Act 1988; 6 officers searched his home, detained for 8 hours.
2. Darren Brady (2022) Army vet shared a meme comparing the Progress Pride flag to a Swastika.
    - USA: Protected under free speech. No incitement case to be made, and hate speech doesn't legally exist (at least not federally), and if it exists within somebody's philosophical priors, it's still protected.
    - UK: Detained for an undisclosed amount of hours and coerced into attending a hate-crime awareness course as an alternative to prosecution.
3. Lucy Connolly (2024) Following a stabbing incident (which apparently you don't have to worry about?) in Southport, she posted a tweet suggesting setting fire to hotels housing asylum seekers.
    - USA: potentially prosecutable as incitement; good case for intent, a bit of an uphill battle on imminence and likelihood. Though considering we've even had U.S. Senators encourage riots even on video, probably not.
    - UK: charged with stirring up racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986 and sentenced to 31 months in prison.

And so on. So clearly these systems are quite different, but I generally don't think a country that isn't a tyranny routinely detains, searches, and prosecutes people for sharing memes, no matter how offensive. Over here, you have a right to be an asshole. And one bears all sociological consequences thereof. I'd like to think we in America believe that the offense that we take to the offensive information communicated by others, is our moral burden alone as individuals, but there are still authoritarians aplenty here who would disagree. If someone's meme, tweet, political opinion, insult, etc. causes "distress" to another, that's their problem, not that of State. Offense is taken, not given. And I reckon being thrown in prison causes a hell of a lot more "distress" than seeing a single meme on facebook ever could.

2. Prime Minister's Questions looks sick as hell; I wish we had something like that. Damn, that would be both entertaining and enlightening in regards to Trump.

I wouldn't regard the UK as an *absolute* tyranny. I wouldn't regard the US as entirely free, either. I'd say both are Tyrannical Bureaucracies that operate under the guise of serving the people, but exist moreso to empower the State and its agents to do as they please. To the degree that they pitch your welfare as their primary concern for their authoritarianism, they're a nanny state. Is that a sufficient definition?

In my estimation, we shouldn't be anywhere near as worried about absolute tyrannies as we should be terrified of tyrannies that incrementally abuse power, counting on the bulk of the populace to simply shrug about it out of cowardice and apathy. So whatever percent tyrannized I am, whatever percent enslaved I am, I regard none of it as acceptable and all of it with contempt. With every shrug one gives, he permits that total percentage of tyranny/slavery to creep. Him and his countrymen will be fellow boiled frogs, and he enables his immolation.

The entire reason they brought up speed limits in this clip is precisely BECAUSE it's a current problem, highly indicative of a nanny state. While there's no universal speed limit, there's been a consistent creep:
- Wales (2023) 20mph speed limit affects 1/3rd of all roads in the entire principality.
- The Scottish Government has committed to implementing 20 mph speed limits on appropriate roads by the end of 2025, aiming to reduce road deaths and encourage "active travel"
- England: several 20mph zones, but in residential and school zones and no plans in urban areas. So I don't take issue, that's only 5mph less than we do it over here for the same zones.

The general trend is being followed in the rest of Europe, which they were speaking of broadly.

Those who aren't pathologically Agreeable in the US, tend to assume that the risk of death or injury from operating a motor vehicle is less of a concern than the economic and general life advantages of getting where you need to go quickly. The Managers™ of Altruist "democracies" would rather you waste your life away in traffic if your commute is too long to bike or walk. Because for some reason, that's better than the risk of getting in a crash. Or the classic hysterical existential risk of environmental catastrophe that they've been desperately peddling for the last 60 years.

I'd agree that our domestic concerns are our own. But they serve as a great springboard for exploring the philosophical underpinnings of our laws. Negotiation happens within our respective governments, but if we can discuss our principles, we can each get a better idea of what our ideal is. So long as I can prevent myself from being a cunt (sorry again), I reckon we benefit from the exchange.

I certainly agree that reasonable minds can disagree on such things. I'm with Franklin on that one: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." You're correct in your assumption that I'd rather face every gruesome quality of the State of Nature and bear the consequences myself, than to have to trust the State to do it for me. I suppose I'd rather keep all my freedoms, and bear the responsibility myself, even if it kills me, because at least I know it's under my control, and thus I deserve whatever I get. Pretty stereotypically American in some respects, so you have good instincts lol.

3. Correct, if the UK is a nanny state, then States like California and NY are nanny *Provinces*. My quarrel isn't my federal gov't versus yours, it's the State's power to coerce and its propensity to abuse it. I oppose it anywhere it exists. At least, I'd like to think I do.

On the contrary, I reckon I'm one of relatively few Americans who are concerned with Northumberland's speed limits. Obviously you make a good point; abuses (percieved or otherwise) in your hemisphere hardly concern me as much as those in my own. Rogan calls that out because he's a Liberal, i.e. concerned with liberty, and I agree because I am too. I reckon Lincoln was wrong to suspend habeas corpus, and they were at war. This isn't even comparable to those circumstances. The sentiment that "if the state can do it to them, it can do it to me" seems reasonable to me. Though this, like many principles, is often one deployed out of convenience and in opposition to the current administration. I prefer to at least try to be consistent.

Thx again for reminding me that I ought not to be itching to go to war over text on the internet with strangers. Probably could have figured that out on my own. Turns out, it's not very productive!