Is The Allowance of Incitement Legal 3: Definitive Edition *Updated, see section 1*

In my original version of this, I attempted to make this as clear as crystal. Apparently for some, even that isn't clear enough. Point one and two have been merged to save time.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor legal professional.  This is a literal interpretation of US law by an outsider who has tried to understand as much of US law as is possible without taking legal lessons.

That said, legal precedent, while not the law, does set the standard for what the law will become and what the judge is likely to rule in a case. I understand the importance precedent has played in US legal history and have had various US members verify this importance.

 

1. The Law: The law dictates that sexual activities with under aged persons, children, is illegal.

The US law says that sexual attraction to children is not illegal and that is fair enough. See source 1. However, it does say that grooming, sexual advances on children, and that it is not legal to tell others to do harm via the incitement law.

Incitement is an internationally present legal clause that states quite simply the following: Promotion of an action that is against the law is against the law. The US precedent was set by Brandenburg v. Ohio and later confirmed in three other cases which have since been the cornerstone of many trials.

There is a legal precedent set during the Kansas v. Hendricks case, in which the Supreme Court found evidence of him having a mental abnormality, however gave him an indefinite sentence regardless of administration of treatment.

In the case, United States v. Comstock, another predator was given an indefinite sentence for possession of child pornography. These cases are the precedent in the states set against paedophilia, however under these precedents there have been thousands to tens of thousands of cases processed in the US under these precedents.

All of this made as clearly as I can make it means the following: In the US, you cannot express the desire of sex with children and claim it is advocacy.

When we shift to the UK legal system, it is all laid out within solid and codified laws that plainly state the age of consent, what the terms and conditions are for that age of consent, and the punishments for said action.

But back onto point: breaking the law is against the law. Simple. Advocate all you want, state plainly and simply what you want the legal system to look like, and we will all disagree, but using children as pieces in your propaganda mill, using your resources to lure in children, and directly stating that you have and want to have sex with children is against the law on several different levels.

The next point we have come to is Freedom of Speech. I have been meaning to bring this up for a long time. I have had discussions with several people about this topic and have been very sure to get this right.

Freedom of speech is a right granted to all individuals in all western states, however once said speech has been produced, there are possible legal actions that can be taken against you. An example includes sharing government secrets or information that is classified.

Notice that word. Right. It means it's not a law. You have the right, the ability to speak freely but there are consequences for your speech. You are protected against physical violence by the law, but you are not protected from the law if you are in breach of the law.

In our instance, freedom of speech is limited by legal precedent: The case previously mentioned Brandenburg v. Ohio. You have the right to speak, but the government has the right to, if you are in violation of a law, arrest you. As we have previously discussed, incitement is against the law.

If it weren't, groups like ISIS would be allowed to operate on the streets, as is that is only the case in the UK. But I digress.

Another law that is valid in this case is that of aiding and abetting.

Aiding and abetting is a legal doctrine related to the guilt of someone who aids or abets in the commission of a crime. It exists in a number of different countries and generally allows a court to pronounce someone guilty for aiding and abetting in a crime even if they are not the principal offender.

This means that in a case, a judge can decide against a citizen based on their actions in encouraging, assisting in or coercing another individual to perform an act that is against the law.

It is derived from the United States Code (U.S.C.), section two of title 18: (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever wilfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

 

3. Illegality and the Promotion of Illegal Content on the Site: Any site which promotes illegal activity, that is activity that is illegal within the country of founding (America in this case) is subject to legal action if reported to the FBI.

This is simply the case: allowance of content that is against the law is against the law. Websites are not public property, they are public domain, public accessible, but are bound by the legal system tightly and must operate within its structure lest they be removed or probed.

Intellectual property owned privately, by a non-government organisation, is subject to the law, but said website is not subject by default to freedom of speech or expression, and if decided, a website could decide to ban any user for activity that seems to be against the law.

The law trumps rights. Sorry.

 

4. Grooming:

All legal systems have laws and precedents against grooming, and the US is no exception. Attempting to lure a child in, as we indeed have evidence of, see The Folder of Truth on my Minds page (assuming it is up yet) but either way, the legal codes are 18 USCS 2422 A and B and the legal precedents have already been stated.

We have evidence that members associated with this site are attempting to groom children and are doing so on this and the main Heart Progress site.

This isn't 50 different parts of different puzzles, this is a co-ordinated network of predators operating in front of our eyes in part, and in private.

They use this site's advanced encryption to avoid the law. Seriously, they need to be dealt with, as they are in violation of the law.

This applies to all future cases unless the law is changed, and on the day the law changes, hell will freeze over and the planet will earn itself an early grave.

These people will never gain mainstream attention in a positive, sustained way, and for all of you saying 'they're just trolls.'

Trolls don't get international attention from Salon or book deals. No troll is that dedicated to the cause.

 

Sources:

Source 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Definitions_2