Ethics of free speech in relation to violence

[RDKirk]

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.

Fair point. So, then, because you call attention to that "if" and have not attempted to demonstrate any such rights God has established that earthly governments are obliged to observe (or that Christians should rebel to attain) then we are in agreement that there are none.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

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.

Leaders who don't have any authority to compel others to act are not leaders. They are simply people opining stuff. Mob bosses assume that authority, but don't possess it legally.

NO ONE has authority to command illegal or immoral behavior. No one.

 

[RDKirk]

Leaders who don't have any authority to compel others to act are not leaders. They are simply people opining stuff. Mob bosses assume that authority, but don't possess it legally.

NO ONE has authority to command illegal or immoral behavior. No one.

However, leaders do possess a measure of shaping practical legality, at least within the limits of their punitive authority.

I remember when I was stationed in the Philippines, for a couple of weeks the Filipino workers stated a strike against the US facilities at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base. They barricaded the gates and prevented anyone from entering or leaving the bases. In order to prevent violence, the base commanders ordered American personnel not to attempt to cross the barricades or to cross the fence lines at any other points.

This caused a problem because about 1,000 American military families lived off base. The water off-base was untreated and undrinkable, so the families had to transport jugs of drinking water from the base every day. And many of them, particularly the junior enlisted families, didn't have much Philippine currency on hand to buy food or pay bills off-base at the moment the gates were barricaded.

But during the strike, our unit commander discovered that one captain from our unit was using his personal all-terrain cycle to cross the fence at a broken point to ferry money and water to the families of junior personnel in the unit.

This was completely against the general's orders...but our commander closed his eyes to it. And I suspect he wasn't the only one. I further suspect the general was aware of it.

Back in the days of lynching in the American south, it wasn't unusual for a city father to say, after some racial incident in which a black man was named, something like, "I am a man who personally abhors violence. But it would certainly be understandable if someone in this fair city were pushed beyond the limits of moral tolerance, and something unspeakable were to happen to that Negro."

In 1961, integrated groups of young black and white men and women attempted to test the 1947 and 1960 Supreme Court rulings that banned segregation of interstate transportation. The governor of Alabama declared that they would never be allowed to pass through his state.

On May 14, 1961, their Greyhound bus arrived in Anniston, Alabama. There, an angry mob of about 200 white people surrounded the bus, causing the driver to continue past the bus station.

The mob followed the bus in automobiles until someone threw a bomb into the bus. The Freedom Riders escaped the bus as it burst into flames, only to be brutally beaten by members of the surrounding mob.

It was later learned that the police had told members of the mob that they would be given ten minutes to do whatever they wanted to the bus riders before police would arrive.

Leaders do possess a measure of shaping practical legality, at least within the limits of their punitive jurisdiction.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

However, leaders do possess a measure of shaping practical legality, at least within the limits of their punitive authority.

I remember when I was stationed in the Philippines, for a couple of weeks the Filipino workers stated a strike against the US facilities at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base. They barricaded the gates and prevented anyone from entering or leaving the bases. In order to prevent violence, the base commanders ordered American personnel not to attempt to cross the barricades or to cross the fence lines at any other points.

This caused a problem because about 1,000 American military families lived off base. The water off-base was untreated and undrinkable, so the families had to transport jugs of drinking water from the base every day. And many of them, particularly the junior enlisted families, didn't have much Philippine currency on hand to buy food or pay bills off-base at the moment the gates were barricaded.

But during the strike, our unit commander discovered that one captain from our unit was using his personal all-terrain cycle to cross the fence at a broken point to ferry money and water to the families of junior personnel in the unit.

This was completely against the general's orders...but our commander closed his eyes to it. And I suspect he wasn't the only one. I further suspect the general was aware of it.

Back in the days of lynching in the American south, it wasn't unusual for a city father to say, after some racial incident in which a black man was named, something like, "I am a man who personally abhors violence. But it would certainly be understandable if someone in this fair city were pushed beyond the limits of moral tolerance, and something unspeakable were to happen to that Negro."

In 1961, integrated groups of young black and white men and women attempted to test the 1947 and 1960 Supreme Court rulings that banned segregation of interstate transportation. The governor of Alabama declared that they would never be allowed to pass through his state.

On May 14, 1961, their Greyhound bus arrived in Anniston, Alabama. There, an angry mob of about 200 white people surrounded the bus, causing the driver to continue past the bus station.

The mob followed the bus in automobiles until someone threw a bomb into the bus. The Freedom Riders escaped the bus as it burst into flames, only to be brutally beaten by members of the surrounding mob.

It was later learned that the police had told members of the mob that they would be given ten minutes to do whatever they wanted to the bus riders before police would arrive.

Leaders do possess a measure of shaping practical legality, at least within the limits of their punitive jurisdiction.

Well, in your scenario, those barricading the gates - illegally I am presuming - were depriving people of food and water. No one has LEGITIMATE authority to do that. So your officer countering that scenario makes perfect sense. It was either get water or die.

And the police in your second scenario committed criminal conspiracy, at the least. Not sure why you are using these examples.

NO ONE has the right to command illegal or immoral behavior, as I said.

 

[grasping the after wind]

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.

That is why it cannot justly be regulated.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Leaders who don't have any authority to compel others to act are not leaders. They are simply people opining stuff. Mob bosses assume that authority, but don't possess it legally.

Illegal authority is still authority.

NO ONE has authority to command illegal or immoral behavior. No one.

Leaders do it all the time. The very fact that it is illegal and/or immoral is what makes them accountable.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Illegal authority is still authority.



Leaders do it all the time. The very fact that it is illegal and/or immoral is what makes them accountable.

It is not LEGITIMATE authority. And yes, they will be accountable.

Even the Bible recognizes this:

1 Timothy 2:1-3

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,

Titus 3:1


Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed,

BUT ALSO: Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

Follow me as I follow Christ. Paul

Martin Luther resisted evil in authority when they were selling indulgences.

The Doctrine of Lesser Magistrates acknowledges this: The lesser magistrate doctrine declares that when the superior or higher civil authority makes unjust/ immoral laws or decrees, the lesser or lower ranking civil authority has both a right and duty to refuse obedience to that superior authority. If necessary, the lesser authorities even have the right and obligation to actively resist the superior authority.

Like Hitler killing Jews, for example. Some hid Jews, which was against the law, and they were right to do so.

 

[Larniavc]

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?

When someone wins what is essentially a popularity competition that person should be smart enough to understand that people will then follow your lead.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Fair point. So, then, because you call attention to that "if" and have not attempted to demonstrate any such rights God has established that earthly governments are obliged to observe (or that Christians should rebel to attain) then we are in agreement that there are none.

No we are not in agreement . Unlike me, You have made a decision on what you believe. Your belief that no innate, God given rights exist differs from the belief of the writers of the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution. As a citizen of the US, I am willing to accept their POV that they found it self evident that there are such individual rights. I also am quite satisfied to accept the idea that the rights they recognized as being endowed by their Creator trump the whims of government officials. Just as I cannot prove that it is evil to murder another person , I cannot prove that God has endowed us with rights or that by our very nature as humans we are entitled to individual rights that supersede the whims of government officials . The form of government based upon those assumptions seems to me to be the least virulent form of governance that the planet has yet come up with. So, though I do not contend it is a proven fact that such rights exist I also do not agree with you that it is a fact that they do not. Instead I will simply assume they exist because to do otherwise means that it is right and just that the whims of government officials out weigh all else.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is not LEGITIMATE authority. And yes, they will be accountable.

Legitimacy does not determine accountability.

We agree the Mob Boss has no "LEGITIMATE" authority, and we agree that whatever he orders his minions to do will almost certainly be illegal and immoral... but he is still responsible.

 

[RDKirk]

Well, in your scenario, those barricading the gates - illegally I am presuming - were depriving people of food and water. No one has LEGITIMATE authority to do that. So your officer countering that scenario makes perfect sense. It was either get water or die.

Except that his own legal authority had ordered against it. But his legal authority also permitted him to ignore their own orders. At I said repeatedly: Practical legality within the jurisdiction of their authority. Clearly that captain did have the practical right to disobey those orders, being confident that his disobedience would not be punished by his superiors.

And the police in your second scenario committed criminal conspiracy, at the least. Not sure why you are using these examples.

But again, those police officers were confident that their actions would not be punished by their superiors. Practical legality within the jurisdiction of their authority.

NO ONE has the right to command illegal or immoral behavior, as I said.

People often talk about "rights" as though they were natural law. They are not.

Rights are merely privileges protected by the powerful.

 

[RDKirk]

No we are not in agreement . Unlike me, You have made a decision on what you believe. Your belief that no innate, God given rights exist differs from the belief of the writers of the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

They didn't believe it themselves, inasmuch as they refused to extend those rights to everyone in their own jurisdiction.

As a citizen of the US, I am willing to accept their POV that they found it self evident that there are such individual rights. I also am quite satisfied to accept the idea that the rights they recognized as being endowed by their Creator trump the whims of government officials. Just as I cannot prove that it is evil to murder another person , I cannot prove that God has endowed us with rights or that by our very nature as humans we are entitled to individual rights that supersede the whims of government officials . The form of government based upon those assumptions seems to me to be the least virulent form of governance that the planet has yet come up with. So, though I do not contend it is a proven fact that such rights exist I also do not agree with you that it is a fact that they do not. Instead I will simply assume they exist because to do otherwise means that it is right and just that the whims of government officials out weigh all else.

If we have rights guaranteed by God of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," then how can God have given the king authority to use the sword?

 

[grasping the after wind]

They didn't believe it themselves, inasmuch as they refused to extend those rights to everyone in their own jurisdiction.



If we have rights guaranteed by God of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," then how can God have given the king authority to use the sword?

You can accuse people of hypocrisy if you like but you cannot make me believe you are qualified to tell another person they don't believe what they say they believe. That is claiming to be a mind reader and the mind reading of people long dead must be very difficult.

No one said we had rights guaranteed by God . I am just assuming that we are endowed these rights by God not guaranteed them those are two very different concepts. I can give you something without guaranteeing that you will be able to keep it. If I give it to you and you give it away, or if you lose it, or if someone should steal it while you were not looking , or if someone were to appropriate it from you by force, that does not mean that I did not give it to you. I gave it to you but you were just either unwilling or unable to retain it.

 

[RDKirk]

You can accuse people of hypocrisy if you like but you cannot make me believe you are qualified to tell another person they don't believe what they say they believe. That is claiming to be a mind reader and the mind reading of people long dead must be very difficult.

No one said we had rights guaranteed by God . I am just assuming that we are endowed these rights by God not guaranteed them those are two very different concepts. I can give you something without guaranteeing that you will be able to keep it. If I give it to you and you give it away, or if you lose it, or if someone should steal it while you were not looking , or if someone were to appropriate it from you by force, that does not mean that I did not give it to you. I gave it to you but you were just either unwilling or unable to retain it.

In that case, it's not a "right." The word has lost its meaning.

In that case, it's just a "privilege" that you must retain by your own devices.

 

[LockeeDeck]

However, leaders do possess a measure of shaping practical legality, at least within the limits of their punitive authority.

I remember when I was stationed in the Philippines, for a couple of weeks the Filipino workers stated a strike against the US facilities at Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base. They barricaded the gates and prevented anyone from entering or leaving the bases. In order to prevent violence, the base commanders ordered American personnel not to attempt to cross the barricades or to cross the fence lines at any other points.

This caused a problem because about 1,000 American military families lived off base. The water off-base was untreated and undrinkable, so the families had to transport jugs of drinking water from the base every day. And many of them, particularly the junior enlisted families, didn't have much Philippine currency on hand to buy food or pay bills off-base at the moment the gates were barricaded.

But during the strike, our unit commander discovered that one captain from our unit was using his personal all-terrain cycle to cross the fence at a broken point to ferry money and water to the families of junior personnel in the unit.

This was completely against the general's orders...but our commander closed his eyes to it. And I suspect he wasn't the only one. I further suspect the general was aware of it.

Back in the days of lynching in the American south, it wasn't unusual for a city father to say, after some racial incident in which a black man was named, something like, "I am a man who personally abhors violence. But it would certainly be understandable if someone in this fair city were pushed beyond the limits of moral tolerance, and something unspeakable were to happen to that Negro."

In 1961, integrated groups of young black and white men and women attempted to test the 1947 and 1960 Supreme Court rulings that banned segregation of interstate transportation. The governor of Alabama declared that they would never be allowed to pass through his state.

On May 14, 1961, their Greyhound bus arrived in Anniston, Alabama. There, an angry mob of about 200 white people surrounded the bus, causing the driver to continue past the bus station.

The mob followed the bus in automobiles until someone threw a bomb into the bus. The Freedom Riders escaped the bus as it burst into flames, only to be brutally beaten by members of the surrounding mob.

It was later learned that the police had told members of the mob that they would be given ten minutes to do whatever they wanted to the bus riders before police would arrive.

Leaders do possess a measure of shaping practical legality, at least within the limits of their punitive jurisdiction.

This brings up another interesting question, are leaders responsible for their silence?

Suppose a mob that thinks they are following the orders of a leader attacks a building with that leaders opponents in it and the leader says and does nothing to stop the mob. Is that leader responsible?

 

[grasping the after wind]

In that case, it's not a "right." The word has lost its meaning.

In that case, it's just a "privilege" that you must retain by your own devices.

The word right has not lost its meaning . You seem to be wishing to add a meaning that it never had as there is nothing in the meaning that would suggest having a right makes one invulnerable or invincible to oppressors. The authors of the Constitution obviously did not believe that having a right to something meant that no one could find a way to infringe upon those rights or else they would have had no reason to include a Bill of Rights in the document. What is rightfully yours can be wrongfully taken from you . That does not mean it was and is not rightfully yours.


Unlike a right which one owns whether or not one is being unjustly or immorally kept from exercising, if one is given a privilege one has no moral or ethical entitlement to that privilege. Whoever has actual ownership of that privilege is the only one that could be harmed by its removal from one. If the owner removes it then no harm is done to anyone. If it is removed by another altogether, by force or stealth one has no reason to complain because one had no ownership of it but only a temporary stewardship of it so as to allow one to have it for the moment. Since it did not belong to one, one should simply be grateful to have had it for as long as one did. If one has no right to life, then if someone should take that life from you they are not being unjust to you as it was only a privilege and that person decided to remove a privilege for which you had no right to and therefore were not entitle to keep. Same with liberty if the government should decide, on a whim, or to gain more authoritarian might, to imprison or enslave one that government would not be doing one harm as one had no right to liberty only a temporary privilege of being allowed to be free from imprisonment or slavery. Further, if one decides that it is government that confers these things upon people, then government would be legally, morally and ethically justified to kill or enslave or imprison with impunity for whatever reason it pleases as it is the rightful owner of anything it has allowed one to hold for a time.

 

[grasping the after wind]

This brings up another interesting question, are leaders responsible for their silence?

Suppose a mob that thinks they are following the orders of a leader attacks a building with that leaders opponents in it and the leader says and does nothing to stop the mob. Is that leader responsible?

AFAIK mobs do not think, They react in an emotional and irrational manner. Later, individuals that wee caught up in the mob frenzy may wish to find an excuse for their irrational behavior by finding a scapegoat to blame. Children will often do this sort of thing saying things like " See what you made me do?" .

 

[Bradskii]

That is why it cannot justly be regulated.

I disagree. Just because it is difficult doesn't mean we forget about it. It's like English Common Law. Here's an example where it's agreed that it's obviously wrong so any more examples of this behaviour and it's treated accordingly.

In other words, we treat each example on it's merits and then use that as a guide for future problems.

 

[TLK Valentine]

This brings up another interesting question, are leaders responsible for their silence?

Suppose a mob that thinks they are following the orders of a leader attacks a building with that leaders opponents in it and the leader says and does nothing to stop the mob. Is that leader responsible?

I would say it depends on whether the leader knew in advance that the mob was planning to do something like that in his name....

 

[LockeeDeck]

AFAIK mobs do not think, They react in an emotional and irrational manner. Later, individuals that wee caught up in the mob frenzy may wish to find an excuse for their irrational behavior by finding a scapegoat to blame. Children will often do this sort of thing saying things like " See what you made me do?" .

Does a leader have any obligation to speak out if their followers are doing destructive things?