Ethics of free speech in relation to violence

[LockeeDeck]

You might be raising a good question. Let me ask another though. When entertainer Madonna said at a rally (when Trump was President) that she felt like blowing up the White House and she said the next day,

"However I want to clarify some very important things. I am not a violent person, I do not promote violence and it's important people hear and understand my speech in it's entirety rather than one phrase taken wildly out of context"

No one blew up the white house though.

So the question....are you and others OK with that? Or what Cathy Griffin did which I won't go into to speak about. If some of their followers and I don't think anyone can argue that Madonna doesn't have influence if some supporters sought to carry out what she expressed.....does she get off by just claiming she's not a violent person?

Consequences are what matter, with the examples you gave it was entertainers being dramatic and it seems people saw that and no violent actions followed. An example of that on the other side would be a country star saying he would shove his gun in Hillary's body if she tried to take it away.

So if we're going to talk about subjects like this including penalty and punishment are we all agreed it should go right across the board, no exceptions? Are we going to go for an allowance for some and not others?

This isn't partisan, this is the ethics board, it's very telling that you think it is though.

Either way, what are your thoughts on that scenario? Is a leader responsible for the actions of their followers if the followers felt that the actions were orders?

 

[LockeeDeck]

This was answered in post #37.

Yes, by you. I'm asking renniks. You can't assume he would have the same answer as you just because his initial response was the same as yours. Not everyone carries the idea of sole responsibility to that extreme.

 

[Rajni]

You can't assume he would have the same answer as you just because his initial response was the same as yours.

You can't assume that's what I was assuming.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree that authority and number of followers are factors but I'm not sure it's so cut and dry as you make it out to be. A person with only one follower might have a lot of influence over that single follower even if they don't have direct authority over them. The columbine shooters for example, it's widely believed one was dominate and talked the other one into doing it.

Your bible study example, 7-10 people is a more intimate group size and as a result it's likely you would have more influence on the members of that group than a group of 300. Although at a certain point peer pressure would also influence the group.

Does the number of followers change the amount of responsibility the speaker has for the actions of the followers?

Followership is a recognition of authority, even though the extent of authority is a spectrum.

If a man has a single follower, but that follower is willing to kill or die for him, then that level of authority makes him responsible for the other's actions (we're presuming here that the man has willingly cultured that authority over the other). It's like owning and training a police dog. The handler may have only one follower--the dog--but he's still acknowledged as being responsible for the actions of the dog.

A military unit may be attritted in combat down to one soldier and the commander, but the commander's authority over that soldier is not considered to have diminished along with the number of soldiers.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes it is called the responsibility of leadership.

If my boss complains about talking too much at work then I am right to think there is too much talking (some bosses don't mind some encourage it for team building). If a random person complains that the team talks too much then that's just their opinion unless it comes from management.

You can't be a leader and then wash your hands of responsibility. Trump is completely irresponsible.

In military leader I can legally say, "That statement by the president is false." I am prohibited from saying, however, "The president is a liar."

I am also prohibited from giving my subordinates an order to perform an illegal act. In fact, whether they actually perform that illegal or not (and they should not), it's illegal for me to have ordered them to perform an illegal act. The speech itself is illegal despite the fact that the act was never performed.

There are reasons for both of those: The fact that I am in a position of government authority with people who are pledged to obey my authority.

 

[LockeeDeck]

In military leader I can legally say, "That statement by the president is false." I am prohibited from saying, however, "The president is a liar."

I am also prohibited from giving my subordinates an order to perform an illegal act. In fact, whether they actually perform that illegal or not (and they should not), it's illegal for me to have ordered them to perform an illegal act. The speech itself is illegal despite the fact that the act was never performed.

There are reasons for both of those: The fact that I am in a position of government authority with people who are pledged to obey my authority.

Makes sense given the strict hierarchy of the military.

What of implied orders or at least subordinates that follow what they think are implied orders?

 

[RDKirk]

Depends on the context.



Did the king have a habit of "indirectly" ordering such things? Did the king know that his knights have a habit of being proactive? (not sure about the historical case, but if so, then the king is indeed responsible)

There is actually a biblical reference to such a thing:

At that time David was in the stronghold, and the Philistine garrison was at Bethlehem. David longed for water and said, "Oh, that someone would get me a drink of water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem!"

So the three mighty warriors broke through the Philistine lines, drew water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem and carried it back to David.

But he refused to drink it; instead, he poured it out before the LORD. "Far be it from me, LORD, to do this!" he said. "Is it not the blood of men who went at the risk of their lives?" And David would not drink it. Such were the exploits of the three mighty warriors.-- 2 Samuel 23

David and King Saul didn't get along; David was on the run from Saul for his life for several years. It's a good thing during that time David had never cried out in frustration, "I wish King Saul were dead!"

I have a personal anecdote. At one point I (as an Air Force senior NCO) was assigned to a joint unit, working for a Marine colonel with airmen, soldiers, sailors, and Marines under my authority. At the end of the first week, just before lunch, I was looking over the division space and musing over how rearranging the desks would enhance operations.

My Marine staff sergeant noticed my intent gaze and asked, "Whatcha looking at, Top?" I described what I was thinking about, this and that, there and there. Then I went to lunch.

When I came back from lunch...the space had been completely rearranged according to what I'd told the staff sergeant. "Why did you do all that...I was just thinking about it." The staff sergeant said, "Well, Top, you said...."

I learned that "Top said..." goes a long way in the Marines. I became a lot more careful about what I said because: "Never tell a Marine a job needs doing unless you mean it."

But I'd seen the same thing happen in military units when a general officer walked through and tossed out what might have been an idle muse about changes to be made. His subordinates made that "idle muse" happen.

Early in the Trump presidency, an urgent question arose for the Pentagon: Did Trump's tweets regarding the military amount to actual direction? When Trump tweeted, "The military ought to...." was that a presidential command? They had to get authoritative legal council on that question, because it was a very serious issue.

 

[RDKirk]

You might find this amusingly relevant[/MEDIA]

President Kennedy's phrase was, "Remove with extreme vigor."

You have to say that with a Boston accent.

 

[RDKirk]

You seem to be conflating allowing freedom to choose with approving of the choice. Our Creator endowed us with freedom to act knowing we will, would and have done things that He won't, didn't and doesn't a approve of. Yet here we are with the freedom to act in ways our Creator has specifically told us He does not approve of. Is it the mandate of government, society or large corporations to take from us that which our Creator endowed us with ? If it is, from where did any of them get authority to overrule the work of the Creator?

Wait...you're saying that because God allows humans to disobey Him without immediate consequence, then government must also allow humans to break the law without consequence.

Yes, actually government does get the authority to mandate obedience with immediate consequences. That's what Romans 13 is about.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Indeed many actions are explicitly condemned in the Bible what I was asking is if speech that incites is also condemned.

Jesus could easily have been said to have used speech that incited violence in others. He even engaged in violence himself so that one could say he incited violence through his actions as well as his speech. Certainly his words incited the authorities to crucify him and they believed they were righteous in doing so based solely upon their being offended by the words he spoke. One can claim anything a person says incited violence if one has a mind to cherry pick what someone says.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Government and societal authority is derived from the people through approval or violence. However, that doesn't factor into how your Creator views freedom of speech and it's consequences.

As the Creator endowed us with freedom of speech it is not proper for any other agency to attempt to remove that freedom. Expressing one's opinion harms no one.

 

[grasping the after wind]

How does that play out in real terms?

Was the king not responsible for his knights?

Was Charles Manson not responsible for his cult members?

The knights and the cultist murderers were responsible for the killings they committed. The king bears no responsibility for complaining but Manson by directly ordering people he had brainwashed into submission to himself is responsible as an accessory to murder. one si resposnible for one's own actions not the actions of others. " He made me do it", " I was following orders", " It is what he actually meant when he said...." are false narratives.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Wait...you're saying that because God allows humans to disobey Him without immediate consequence, then government must also allow humans to break the law without consequence.

Yes, actually government does get the authority to mandate obedience with immediate consequences. That's what Romans 13 is about.

No, I'm saying that if God has endowed us with rights, then government has no moral authority to remove them. That government has the power to enforce compliance in any matter that those in control of government wish to enforce upon individuals does not mean that it is acting in a morally upright way by so doing. If God has not endowed us with rights and we are only allowed whatever privileges it pleases those in control of government to grant us, then we should not falsely claim we have individual rights of any kind. I am not suggesting we should have no laws or consequences for actions. I am suggesting that if we have innate rights that any restrictions placed upon them are illegitimate and immoral as it would be a usurpation of authority. Usurpation of governing authority would be in direct contradiction to Romans 13. If we don't have such God given innate rights, then any restrictions upon our conduct are perfectly legitimate and moral.

If we take Romans 13 to mean that those in control of government must be obeyed in all things, then the Nuremburg trials were a travesty of justice while at the same time being totally just. That being because it tried people for obeying government mandates while being an arm of government following government mandates. Which government was to be obeyed by a citizen of Virginia in 1862? What about when a State government mandates one thing and the federal government mandates the opposite in the current US? I take Romans 13 to mean that governing authorities are to be obeyed. The sticking point is understanding which authorities are governing which things. If we have God given innate individual rights, then those rights are the governing authorities over those areas and not the people in charge of government. Those people in charge of government are the governing authorities of aspects of life that do not conflict with the God given innate rights. It is the God given innate rights which are governing authorities over those aspects of life that they address. There exist more governing authorities than just those in charge of government. We are to obey the governing authority in the area in which it has been given that authority. It is not a matter of simply obeying anything that those in charge of government demand of us. If those in chare of government are demanding something that is outside of the government's area of authority, we are not morally required to comply. It may mean we are punished by those in charge of government for non compliance . What happens in some cases is that if enough people refuse to comply with government when it acts outside of its area of governing authority that eventually those in charge of government will remove oppressive governance from that area. In other cases those in charge of government will simply eliminate non compliers no matter how large their numbers might be.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

President Kennedy's phrase was, "Remove with extreme vigor."

You have to say that with a Boston accent.

"We ah musht invada Cuber with ah great vigah." -JFK

 

[TLK Valentine]

There are reasons for both of those: The fact that I am in a position of government authority with people who are pledged to obey my authority.

Which makes a King responsible for what he says to anyone in his kingdom.

In the case of a President, it's a little more nebulous... obviously, anything he says to the military, he's responsible for... but what about civilians?

Civilians are not required to make any oath of obedience or loyalty to a president, but some do so anyway -- unofficially and non-binding, of course, but there it is.

If a president is aware that he is speaking to civilians who have made such an oath, and, in fact, has encouraged civilians in the past to make such an oath, then it would seem that a president is, indeed, "on the hook," as it were.

 

[RDKirk]

Which makes a King responsible for what he says to anyone in his kingdom.

If we were talking about a constitutional monarchy, no. But that's not what the example was, so yes, in the medieval period, the king's wish was a command.

In the case of a President, it's a little more nebulous... obviously, anything he says to the military, he's responsible for... but what about civilians?

Civilians are not required to make any oath of obedience or loyalty to a president, but some do so anyway -- unofficially and non-binding, of course, but there it is.

If a president is aware that he is speaking to civilians who have made such an oath, and, in fact, has encouraged civilians in the past to make such an oath, then it would seem that a president is, indeed, "on the hook," as it were.

If over the course of time a president has made clear what his standard of loyalty is, then yes.

 

[RDKirk]

No, I'm saying that if God has endowed us with rights,

Has He? Really? Where are they actually stated in scripture.

Just because God doesn't kill you instantly for it doesn't mean it's your "right."

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Is a speaker responsible for the actions of someone who listened to their words and if so to what extent?

A king complains about a priest around his knights and the knights go out and kill the priest even though the king didn't directly order it. Is the king responsible for the actions of his knights?

A president tells his supporters at a rally to fight and "stop the steal" and his supporters go and storm the capital building even though the president didn't directly tell them to do that. Is the president responsible for the actions of the supporters at that rally?

A social media personality says that a certain racial group is responsible for all of societies ills and a fan goes and attacks members of that racial group. Is the social media personality responsible even though he never directly said to do that and is separated in both time and space from the fan?

Each man is responsible for his own action.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Each man is responsible for his own action.

True -- followers are not absolved of their responsibility because they were "just following orders," no matter how much they would like to be.

But let us not forget that a leader takes on even more responsibility... heavy is the head that wears the crown, indeed.

The Mob Boss who orders the hit can share a cell with the button man who pulls the actual trigger.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Has He? Really? Where are they actually stated in scripture.

Just because God doesn't kill you instantly for it doesn't mean it's your "right."

You seem to have missed a little word that was in the sentence you quoted it is called "if" .Perhaps you missed it because it is such a small word even though it has a very large impact on meaning. You are asking me questions as if I did not use that word.

 

[Bradskii]

Jesus could easily have been said to have used speech that incited violence in others. He even engaged in violence himself so that one could say he incited violence through his actions as well as his speech. Certainly his words incited the authorities to crucify him and they believed they were righteous in doing so based solely upon their being offended by the words he spoke. One can claim anything a person says incited violence if one has a mind to cherry pick what someone says.

As the Creator endowed us with freedom of speech it is not proper for any other agency to attempt to remove that freedom. Expressing one's opinion harms no one.

To paraphrase the old saying, 'One man's speech is a call to freedom; another's is a call to arms'.

It's not necessarily what is said. It's the way it's said, when it is said, to whom it is said, how much influence the person who said it has, how it's interpreted. And quite importantly, who is doing the interpretation.

In other words...it's complicated.