There has to be a constitutional line somewhere to protect people from Q-Anon danger

[lees1975]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-dad-killed-his-kids-over-qanon-serpent-dna-conspiracy-n1276611

Yes, the father was held accountable for the murders of his children, as he should have been. And I know all of the arguments about the slippery slope that we go down when we start messing with free speech, regardless of the content of it. But these were kids who couldn't see this coming. There's a measure of responsibility and accountability that goes with every guarantee of individual rights and the accountability for stuff like this goes beyond the ignorance and stupidity of the individual who acted on the information.

Don't you think?

[Haggard Celine]

1. The Q-Anon movement was made to take advantage of

people who are mentally ill and/or needy people without critical thinking skills. I think that if they could pinpoint Q himself and prove that his intention was to radicalize people and get them to do horrific things, they should be able to sue him. But I don't know if it would be possible to prosecute for criminal offenses. I'm not sure how I would feel about throwing people in jail for speech, no matter how awful. If it's seditious speech and misinformation that could harm people, I would have to say that it should be stopped. But a rule like that would have to be used sparingly.

[rownesheck]

2. I watched a documentary that uncovered the identity

of "Q". Turns out "Q" is just an old Speak and Spell that washed up on Jeffrey Epstein's private island.

[DeeNice]

3. So many things about which you could say "there ought to be a law"

but one was never needed because some level of standards and decency prevailed. But then here comes tfg and his coup crew, barging through everything we thought was solid wall. And little was there to stop them. So we have got to fix this. Never again.