Ethics of free speech in relation to violence

[TLK Valentine]

He did not tell them to go physically fight. He told them to make their voices heard, peacefully and patriotically.

It was an 80 minute speech. Count the number of times he said "peace" vs. the number of times he said "fight" and get back to me.

The rest is your speculation. No one who listened to him rationally understood him to be telling them to go start a physical fight.

Considering that they did indeed start physically fighting, it would seem that a good deal of it was their speculation.

Now, I'll grant you that you specified "rationally"understood, which may or may not accurately describe Donald's target audience.

Were there some criminal type outliers? Sure, just as there are whenever the BLM people have a peaceful protest.

Which I already explained that Donald was fully aware of when he made his speech.

The same old recycled excuses won't work here.

If you aren't blaming BLM and the politicians that vocally support them in the protesting/rioting for the past year and the billions in damage, then you can't blame anyone else simply because he doesn't align with you politically.

Make this about me.
Make this about BLM.
Make this about anyone except a leader talking to his followers.

... in a thread about personal responsibility.

 

[Bradskii]

Sure...a mob beat there way into....a few offices and the senate room, which were all clear.

I sincerely (and I really mean very sincerely) hope that your attitude isn't common amongst Americans. Because if thugs with weapons storming the very centre of your democracy resulting in the tragic death of four people - and all because of a lie by the outgoing president, is no big deal as far as you are concerned - then you guys are in deep trouble.

What will the assasination of a member of congress do? Raise a quizical eyebrow? What will the overturn of democraticallly decided elections do? Prompt a shrug of the shoulders?

Good grief, man. Have you no conception of what actually happened?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I sincerely (and I really mean very sincerely) hope that your attitude isn't common amongst Americans.

Only among the ones who still support Donald... not because they believe it, but because they don't want that mob coming after them next.

...but of course they'll never admit that.

 

[LockeeDeck]

A few nutty outliers. You realize ten thousand showed up at this rally, right? And about 9800 just went home after. A couple hundred marched down. A few dozen entered the Capitol. It was all over in a few hours. It shouldn't have happened, but it is a lie to say Trump ordered it.

This thread isn't about whether or not Trump ordered it, it's clear he never said the words directly.

This thread is about a leaders responsibility for the words they DO say and how the leaders followers act on the leaders words.

With that in mind, is a leader responsible for a actions of their followers if the followers believe they are doing the leaders will?

Nut jobs on the streets tear stuff up and torch cars and buildings every time there is a "peaceful protest". Yet, not hearing anything about controlling that.

Most riots don't have a leader or such a clear philosophy as the capitol insurrection.

 

[stevevw]

The right to offend is a real question but not the question at hand. In this case the question is about violence from people who agree with the speaker not by people who are offended.

Is a leader responsible for violence committed by their followers in the leaders name or philosophy?

I guess that comes back to the law. People have the right to free speech so long as it doesnt incite or promote violence. The measure of that in the courts is usually establishing that there was a clear incitment or promotion of violent behaviour. The usual example is when a religious person (extremist) with radical views calls for violence. But even then there can be a grey line between hard hitting rhetoric that stirs people and the the acts of violence by those who receive the messgae.

If someone is just speaking a truth or expressing a belief about something that may be provocative then I don't think we can start turning that into incitemnet of violence. There has to be some responsibility for the recievers interpretation and actions. It's when you get into grey areas where people may speak of controversial issues and speak some hard hitting truths that may be provocative but that still doesnt mean they were intending for people to become violent and take action.

I guess the question is do people have the right to speak about those issues that may be provocative and if they do is it their fault for bringing the issues up if it leads to violence. I think it would depend on the position of responsibility the person has and their values. Speaking about provocative and controversial issues can more likely provoke a reaction if ther issue was already a hotbed and therefore the speaker has some responsibility to tread carefully.

Sometimes speakers react to an isue that has provoked them to speak out and that in turn provokes a reaction. There may be an ongoing exchange or a narrative that has created a divisive and reactionary situation from both sides and it gets to a point where people just break and are ready to act with violence because they have had enough. So it wasnt just what the speaker said but a build up of things that sparked the reaction. I think its not a straight forward issue.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

It was an 80 minute speech. Count the number of times he said "peace" vs. the number of times he said "fight" and get back to me.



Considering that they did indeed start physically fighting, it would seem that a good deal of it was their speculation.

Now, I'll grant you that you specified "rationally"understood, which may or may not accurately describe Donald's target audience.



Which I already explained that Donald was fully aware of when he made his speech.

The same old recycled excuses won't work here.



Make this about me.
Make this about BLM.
Make this about anyone except a leader talking to his followers.

... in a thread about personal responsibility.

Counting words is not how it works, not a relevant factor, and you don't get to choose the words to count.

Everyone has personal responsibility and decides how he is going to act. About 99% of those who went to the 10,000 person rally exercised it properly and went home; a few outliers didn't. They went to the Capitol. Fewer outliers actually broke into the building.

The same old recycled talking points won't work here.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I sincerely (and I really mean very sincerely) hope that your attitude isn't common amongst Americans. Because if thugs with weapons storming the very centre of your democracy resulting in the tragic death of four people - and all because of a lie by the outgoing president, is no big deal as far as you are concerned - then you guys are in deep trouble.

What will the assasination of a member of congress do? Raise a quizical eyebrow? What will the overturn of democraticallly decided elections do? Prompt a shrug of the shoulders?

Good grief, man. Have you no conception of what actually happened?

Good grief; have you no conception of an appropriate analogy? Because "thugs storming the center of democracy" was a few guys who broke in and roamed the halls. One sat at Pelosi's desk and took her podium. Another carried some southern flag. Some pushed against police. Most took video of themselves and others and left. People were injured because people are idiots and they should have gone home like the vast majority of the 10,000 people who showed up to hear the President did. A COP shot one woman breaking in; no charges have resulted, last I heard. Another cop died and it was widely reported by the horrific NYT that it was a murder, when in fact, he had a stroke. Three others died after various medical emergencies.

No one "assassinated a member of Congress". No one "overturned an election".

Don't go to or cause riots. Whether BLM or at the Capitol or anywhere. People get hurt and sometimes die.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

This thread isn't about whether or not Trump ordered it, it's clear he never said the words directly.

This thread is about a leaders responsibility for the words they DO say and how the leaders followers act on the leaders words.

With that in mind, is a leader responsible for a actions of their followers if the followers believe they are doing the leaders will?



Most riots don't have a leader or such a clear philosophy as the capitol insurrection.

Not unless the followers are under duress, gunpoint, etc. We decide what we do.

The intelligent among us say, "Heck no, I'm not doing that" if told to do something that is immoral or illegal. I believe they did, as almost all of the thousands of people who showed up to hear Trump speak just went home.

If I am your group leader - say Pastor, or Boss, or community group - and I tell you to go harass the neighbors and steal all their signs that are out protesting whatever I am pushing, whose responsibility is it if you do it? Yours. You can argue that I told you to do it, but unless I had a gun or some other method of duress, your decision is on you. I could be held separately liable for any crime that fits the jurisdiction under the facts.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Counting words is not how it works, not a relevant factor, and you don't get to choose the words to count.

Didn't do it, did you?

Everyone has personal responsibility and decides how he is going to act. About 99% of those who went to the 10,000 person rally exercised it properly and went home; a few outliers didn't. They went to the Capitol. Fewer outliers actually broke into the building.

Which makes their leader completely blameless because...reasons.

Of course.

 

[Bradskii]

Good grief; have you no conception of an appropriate analogy? Because "thugs storming the center of democracy" was a few guys who broke in and roamed the halls. One sat at Pelosi's desk and took her podium. Another carried some southern flag. Some pushed against police. Most took video of themselves and others and left. People were injured because people are idiots and they should have gone home like the vast majority of the 10,000 people who showed up to hear the President did. A COP shot one woman breaking in; no charges have resulted, last I heard. Another cop died and it was widely reported by the horrific NYT that it was a murder, when in fact, he had a stroke. Three others died after various medical emergencies.

No one "assassinated a member of Congress". No one "overturned an election".

Don't go to or cause riots. Whether BLM or at the Capitol or anywhere. People get hurt and sometimes die.

So you're going with a shrug of the shoulders? Fair enough.

 

[LockeeDeck]

Not unless the followers are under duress, gunpoint, etc. We decide what we do.

The intelligent among us say, "Heck no, I'm not doing that" if told to do something that is immoral or illegal. I believe they did, as almost all of the thousands of people who showed up to hear Trump speak just went home.

That's just it isn't it, no one wants to view themselves as immoral so when a leader says that murdering a certain group is moral a section of the population is going to resonate with that message.

If I am your group leader - say Pastor, or Boss, or community group - and I tell you to go harass the neighbors and steal all their signs that are out protesting whatever I am pushing, whose responsibility is it if you do it? Yours. You can argue that I told you to do it, but unless I had a gun or some other method of duress, your decision is on you.

Indeed, people are responsible for their own actions, the question would be if the leader also holds responsibility.

I could be held separately liable for any crime that fits the jurisdiction under the facts.

In this case it would be conspiracy to commit a crime. It is interesting you frame it as a purely legal question as legality and morality are two different things that only occasionally intersect. Suppose the prosecutor failed to make a good case and couldn't bring charges, would you as the leader still be ethically and morally responsible?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Didn't do it, did you?



Which makes their leader completely blameless because...reasons.

Of course.

Who can control what criminal types decide to do? NO ONE who doesn't directly have physical control over the people.

Yesterday, BLM stormed the Capitol building in Oklahoma yesterday, screaming obscenities at lawmakers on the floor attempting to do their jobs. Fortunately no weapons came out in that instance, thank God, but is this acceptable practice now?

Which "leader" is responsible for this? Or did they just do what they wanted to do? Pretty sure it is the latter.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

So you're going with a shrug of the shoulders? Fair enough.

If you mean by "you are going with a shrug of the shoulders", that I am advocating that the legal process should proceed, resulting in their arrests and eventual conviction, then yes.

If you are doing the trick favored by the left of redefinition, for words to mean something other than what they actually mean, then no.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

That's just it isn't it, no one wants to view themselves as immoral so when a leader says that murdering a certain group is moral a section of the population is going to resonate with that message.



Indeed, people are responsible for their own actions, the question would be if the leader also holds responsibility.



In this case it would be conspiracy to commit a crime. It is interesting you frame it as a purely legal question as legality and morality are two different things that only occasionally intersect. Suppose the prosecutor failed to make a good case and couldn't bring charges, would you as the leader still be ethically and morally responsible?

Well, that's just stupid. If anyone thinks, "I should murder this guy because X told me to do it", then he is too dim-witted to survive very long, I would suspect. Who does NOT know that we should not murder people we disagree with? I'm going with no one.

Yes, to the second. Just as people are responsible for their own actions, leaders are responsible for their own actions. However, the extent to which you can impute the actions of those who listen to someone speak is directly linked to 1) what he actually told them to do, and 2) any actual control or duress leader imposes over them. If none, then he isn't responsible for what they do.

Do you listen to a speaker and then feel compelled to do anything? Or do you just listen? Most fall into the latter category - again, unless duress.

 

[LockeeDeck]

If you mean by "you are going with a shrug of the shoulders", that I am advocating that the legal process should proceed, resulting in their arrests and eventual conviction, then yes.

If you are doing the trick favored by the left of redefinition, for words to mean something other than what they actually mean, then no.

It's worth noting that the criminals in this case fully expected to be pardoned and/or hailed as heroes by their leader.

 

[LockeeDeck]

Well, that's just stupid. If anyone thinks, "I should murder this guy because X told me to do it", then he is too dim-witted to survive very long, I would suspect. Who does NOT know that we should not murder people we disagree with? I'm going with no one.

Yes, to the second. Just as people are responsible for their own actions, leaders are responsible for their own actions. However, the extent to which you can impute the actions of those who listen to someone speak is directly linked to 1) what he actually told them to do, and 2) any actual control or duress leader imposes over them. If none, then he isn't responsible for what they do.

Do you listen to a speaker and then feel compelled to do anything? Or do you just listen? Most fall into the latter category - again, unless duress.

You bring up duress, what of implied duress?

A mob boss for example might bring up a family member up in conversation and make a request directly after with the implied threat that something would happen to the family member if the request wasn't fulfilled.

The knights in the first example in the OP claimed that they thought they were following an indirect order from their king with the same consequences of a not following as a direct order, namely death.

The insurrection example has the consequence of "losing the country", a vague and indirect type of duress but still a form of duress as inaction would have dire results according to the leader.

How much and what type of duress is required for a leader to have some level of responsibility?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not unless the followers are under duress, gunpoint, etc. We decide what we do.

The intelligent among us say, "Heck no, I'm not doing that" if told to do something that is immoral or illegal. I believe they did, as almost all of the thousands of people who showed up to hear Trump speak just went home.

A leader is responsible for more than just his intelligent followers -- especially if "intelligence" isn't a trait said leader encourages in his followers.

If I am your group leader - say Pastor, or Boss, or community group - and I tell you to go harass the neighbors and steal all their signs that are out protesting whatever I am pushing, whose responsibility is it if you do it? Yours.

So why did you give the order? Did you want it to be obeyed?

You can argue that I told you to do it, but unless I had a gun or some other method of duress, your decision is on you. I could be held separately liable for any crime that fits the jurisdiction under the facts.

Legally responsible for the crime; morally responsible for the wrongdoing.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Who can control what criminal types decide to do? NO ONE who doesn't directly have physical control over the people.

Bigger criminals. Anyone with authority who gives the order.

Yesterday, BLM stormed the Capitol building in Oklahoma yesterday, screaming obscenities at lawmakers on the floor attempting to do their jobs. Fortunately no weapons came out in that instance, thank God, but is this acceptable practice now?

Which "leader" is responsible for this? Or did they just do what they wanted to do? Pretty sure it is the latter.

Sometimes mobs act without leaders giving the orders.
Sometimes they act with one.

This concept cannot be all that confusing.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

So why did you give the order? Did you want it to be obeyed?

That first comment doesn't warrant response, as Trump never "ordered" anyone to go break into the Capitol as so many keep falsely asserting.

Secondly about the fictional order, who cares what I want, in this fictional scenario? YOU DECIDE if you are going to do it or not. If I tell you to go steal, YOU are responsible for saying NO.

People tell you to do all sorts of stupid things in this world, from childhood on. Teen years, for sure. You have to develop a moral backbone, and not just blame others (unless someone has a gun to your head, getting back to the duress component that is essential).

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Bigger criminals. Anyone with authority who gives the order.



Sometimes mobs act without leaders giving the orders.
Sometimes they act with one.

This concept cannot be all that confusing.

You got the second assertion correct. Mobs do what they want.