Ethics of free speech in relation to violence

[TLK Valentine]

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

He told them to march to the Capitol and fight for their country. Thatis a true assertion, although I understand why you must insist he did not.

Now, whether or not some of his less-hinged followers misconstrued his words is a mitigating factor, however the fact remains that they engaged in the sort of behavior that he encouraged for years.

If nothing else, he is morally responsible for his recklessness -- but again, you cannot concede that, so I won't expect you to.

Secondly about the fictional order, who cares what I want, in this fictional scenario?[/QUOTE]

Your followers care... that's why they're your followers.

YOU DECIDE if you are going to do it or not. If I tell you to go steal, YOU are responsible for saying NO.

Honest question: Have you ever been in a position of leadership?

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).

And that's why we hold the leader and the followers morally responsible.
People with moral backbones don't end up as followers in the first place.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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

And sometimes they want to follow.

A mob is only as moral, as ethical, or as intelligent as its loudest member.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

He told them to march to the Capitol and fight for their country. Thatis a true assertion, although I understand why you must insist he did not.

Now, whether or not some of his less-hinged followers misconstrued his words is a mitigating factor, however the fact remains that they engaged in the sort of behavior that he encouraged for years.

If nothing else, he is morally responsible for his recklessness -- but again, you cannot concede that, so I won't expect you to.

Secondly about the fictional order, who cares what I want, in this fictional scenario?
Your followers care... that's why they're your followers.



Honest question: Have you ever been in a position of leadership?



And that's why we hold the leader and the followers morally responsible.
People with moral backbones don't end up as followers in the first place

In reality, Trump told attendees at the rally to walk down to the Capitol and make their voices peacefully, patriotically heard, as I have already said. Your ludicrous assertion that "I must deny it" is false on its face. Read the posts. I stated so more than once, if I recall correctly (not just once).

Most declined and went home. A couple hundred walked down. Fewer climbed up and came in. The entire event was concluded in about 3-4 HOURS after it began. I said all of this before.

He told them to "fight like hell for their country" metaphorically, rhetorically, in exactly the same way that all politicians use the word. These are the metaphorical, rhetorical uses of the word ‘fight', which hypocrites seem to only understand when it is done by people of whom they approve, yet feign outrage when someone else uses exactly the same language.

Trump was not in any way telling anyone to use physical violence. That just did not happen.

Congress people and other office holders or seeker do this ALL THE TIME. Warren has told people to fight. Harris has told people to fight, and to stay in the streets and continue, even after the ongoing riots. "They should not stop", she said. Maxine Waters has done it repeatedly, most recently in the tinderbox situation of the Chauvin trial, which was horrifically irresponsible, given the situation. Chuck Schumer has told people to fight. Cory Booker has told people to fight. Castro said Democrats would "fight Trump the Congress, in the Courts and in the streets".

Pelosi said to her inexplicable followers after half a century that they have to "be ready to punch".

It is acceptable for them. But for some nonsensical reason, when Trump says "if you don't fight like hell, you aren't going to have a country anymore", suddenly it is interpreted hypocritically by the very supporters that praise the ongoing violence in the streets for the past year, as well as use terms like "fight" for every kind of speech and event when they don't like something.

Get out of here with that ridiculous hypocrisy. That's all I'm saying. If Maxine Waters is walking around free, and all the others who use such language regularly to advocate their views without retaliation, just put a sock in it.

Remove the hypocrisy, and I will listen to rational views to dial back the fighting language and support them.

And yes, I have most decidedly been in positions of leadership (though not in politics). Even in Little League, they are told to "keep on fighting!" In hockey, basketball, football...you name it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

In reality, Trump told attendees at the rally to walk down to the Capitol and make their voices peacefully, patriotically heard, as I have already said. Your ludicrous assertion that "I must deny it" is false on its face. Read the posts. I stated so more than once, if I recall correctly (not just once).

Donald said several things that day.

Most declined and went home. A couple hundred walked down. Fewer climbed up and came in. The entire event was concluded in about 3-4 HOURS after it began. I said all of this before.

And you think this absolves the leader because...?

He told them to "fight like hell for their country" metaphorically, rhetorically, in exactly the same way that all politicians use the word. These are the metaphorical, rhetorical uses of the word ‘fight', which hypocrites seem to only understand when it is done by people of whom they approve, yet feign outrage when someone else uses exactly the same language.

Except Donald knew perfectly well that not all of his followers would construe it metaphorically.

He used it literally in the past... with atrocious results.
He knew that some of the people he gathered were planning on engaging in literal fighting.
He spent the better part of an hour riling them up with the Big Lie he'd been cultivating for months, and sent them off with his blessing.

If nothing else, he was reckless... if you're ideologically allowed to concede that.

Trump was not in any way telling anyone to use physical violence. That just did not happen.

He'd done it before. He'd encouraged it from his followers in the past.

Congress people and other office holders or seeker do this ALL THE TIME. Warren has told people to fight. Harris has told people to fight, and to stay in the streets and continue, even after the ongoing riots. "They should not stop", she said. Maxine Waters has done it repeatedly, most recently in the tinderbox situation of the Chauvin trial, which was horrifically irresponsible, given the situation. Chuck Schumer has told people to fight. Cory Booker has told people to fight. Castro said Democrats would "fight Trump the Congress, in the Courts and in the streets".

And if/when their loyal followers do get violent, you can -- and will -- hold them accountable for their words.... as will I.


"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you?” “Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise. They won’t be so much, because the courts agree with us too — what’s going on in this country.”

"I remember this guy Velshi, He got hit in the knee with a canister of tear gas and he went down. He was down. 'My knee, my knee.' Nobody cared, these guys didn't care, they moved him aside."
"And they just walked right through. It was the most beautiful thing,"

It is acceptable for them. But for some nonsensical reason, when Trump says "if you don't fight like hell, you aren't going to have a country anymore", suddenly it is interpreted hypocritically by the very supporters that praise the ongoing violence in the streets for the past year, as well as use terms like "fight" for every kind of speech and event when they don't like something.

Who said it was acceptable? I will hold every last one of them accountable for the violence they caused.

How much did they cause?

Get out of here with that ridiculous hypocrisy. That's all I'm saying. If Maxine Waters is walking around free, and all the others who use such language regularly to advocate their views without retaliation, just put a sock in it.

You had a chance to hold Waters accountable -- you failed.

Whose responsibility is that?

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

It's a tricky situation, because a true "leader" is a role model to his followers, by his words, deeds, and attitude...to the point where a real leader wouldn't want "followers" at all, but rather future leaders.

...but I digress.

A leader needs to make their "will" clear to their followers. If they send mixed signals by accident, they're not very competent leaders, and they're at fault for their ignorance.

If they deliberately send mixed signals -- saying "do this" and then claiming "I didn't really mean it" when some of their followers actually do "this" -- then clearly they knew what they were saying was wrong, and shouldn't be allowed to slither out of it.

It's the Nuremburg Defense in reverse. Given that "I was just following orders" is neither morally nor legally acceptable, then "I was just giving orders, but I didn't really mean it," isn't either.

Only when a leader makes their will clear -- "do this, this, and this... but don't do that!" and his followers go ahead and do "that" anyway -- can we hold the leader blameless.

Martin Luther King spoke out against violence -- he's not responsible for the protests that turned ugly.

Charles Manson never actually told his "family" to kill anyone -- but he died in prison precisely as he deserved.

 

[LockeeDeck]

In reality, Trump told attendees at the rally to walk down to the Capitol and make their voices peacefully, patriotically heard, as I have already said. Your ludicrous assertion that "I must deny it" is false on its face. Read the posts. I stated so more than once, if I recall correctly (not just once).

Most declined and went home. A couple hundred walked down. Fewer climbed up and came in. The entire event was concluded in about 3-4 HOURS after it began. I said all of this before.

He told them to "fight like hell for their country" metaphorically, rhetorically, in exactly the same way that all politicians use the word. These are the metaphorical, rhetorical uses of the word ‘fight', which hypocrites seem to only understand when it is done by people of whom they approve, yet feign outrage when someone else uses exactly the same language.

Trump was not in any way telling anyone to use physical violence. That just did not happen.

Congress people and other office holders or seeker do this ALL THE TIME. Warren has told people to fight. Harris has told people to fight, and to stay in the streets and continue, even after the ongoing riots. "They should not stop", she said. Maxine Waters has done it repeatedly, most recently in the tinderbox situation of the Chauvin trial, which was horrifically irresponsible, given the situation. Chuck Schumer has told people to fight. Cory Booker has told people to fight. Castro said Democrats would "fight Trump the Congress, in the Courts and in the streets".

Pelosi said to her inexplicable followers after half a century that they have to "be ready to punch".

It is acceptable for them. But for some nonsensical reason, when Trump says "if you don't fight like hell, you aren't going to have a country anymore", suddenly it is interpreted hypocritically by the very supporters that praise the ongoing violence in the streets for the past year, as well as use terms like "fight" for every kind of speech and event when they don't like something.

Get out of here with that ridiculous hypocrisy. That's all I'm saying. If Maxine Waters is walking around free, and all the others who use such language regularly to advocate their views without retaliation, just put a sock in it.

Remove the hypocrisy, and I will listen to rational views to dial back the fighting language and support them.

And yes, I have most decidedly been in positions of leadership (though not in politics). Even in Little League, they are told to "keep on fighting!" In hockey, basketball, football...you name it.

A key difference is that in the examples you give is that no direct violence was witnessed as a result. Like no one recorded themselves saying there were doing this act of violence for Maxine Waters. Perhaps it's something about the way the others said it or the context but the followers for the other leaders you presented didn't understand what the leader said as a call for violence.

Should a leader be responsible for the chaos if the followers took their words as a call for violence, regardless if they were meant that way?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Should a leader be responsible for the chaos if the followers took their words as a call for violence, regardless if they were meant that way?

This is what I was attempting to address. A leader is responsible for getting their meaning across. Those who thrive on equivocation and ambiguity (which includes about 95% of politicians) at at fault for not making their meaning clear.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Donald said several things that day.



...



Except Donald knew perfectly well that not all of his followers would construe it metaphorically.

He used it literally in the past... with atrocious results.
He knew that some of the people he gathered were planning on engaging in literal fighting.
He spent the better part of an hour riling them up with the Big Lie he'd been cultivating for months, and sent them off with his blessing.

If nothing else, he was reckless... if you're ideologically allowed to concede that.



He'd done it before. He'd encouraged it from his followers in the past.



And if/when their loyal followers do get violent, you can -- and will -- hold them accountable for their words.... as will I.


"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you?” “Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise. They won’t be so much, because the courts agree with us too — what’s going on in this country.”

"I remember this guy Velshi, He got hit in the knee with a canister of tear gas and he went down. He was down. 'My knee, my knee.' Nobody cared, these guys didn't care, they moved him aside."
"And they just walked right through. It was the most beautiful thing,"



Who said it was acceptable? I will hold every last one of them accountable for the violence they caused.

How much did they cause?



You had a chance to hold Waters accountable -- you failed.

Whose responsibility is that?

Saying "He said several things" does not refute your false assertion where you insisted "I must deny" what he said. I stated what he said. If you have an exact quote to the contrary, where he told them to commit violence and crime, let's hear it. It does not exist.

Speculation as to "he knew" that people would commit crimes. Jury is instructed to ignore.

Please describe and source past incidents where Trump ordered people listening to commit criminal actions and they did, as you assert in the bolded.

All of what you assert here is your speculation; you are entitled to your beliefs, of course, but they are not facts. Those who were chomping at the bit to oust him "by any means necessary" already accused him of every possible thing, using much the language you are repeating here - but it did not stick.

There was NO conviction on "inciting an insurrection". Remember?

I would concede reckless, given what happened. I will not concede that he controlled them and ordered them to do anything because it simply isn't based in facts or reality.

The bolded about holding Waters and other Democrats responsible for their language simply never happens. They are given a pass for using EXACTLY the same kind of fight language that others use. So if you will hold them responsible, why aren't you railing about that? If it is reckless for anyone, it is reckless for them as well. And we already know that BILLIONS in damage has been done all over the country in the riots that they have praised and approved on a regular basis. So you are trying to argue out of both sides of your mouth here.

"I" had a chance to hold Waters responsible? When did this occur, because I would have censured her and removed her from her position if "I" had the power, as you nonsensically claim here.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

A key difference is that in the examples you give is that no direct violence was witnessed as a result. Like no one recorded themselves saying there were doing this act of violence for Maxine Waters. Perhaps it's something about the way the others said it or the context but the followers for the other leaders you presented didn't understand what the leader said as a call for violence.

Should a leader be responsible for the chaos if the followers took their words as a call for violence, regardless if they were meant that way?

Seriously? You think the ongoing riots and fires and property damage and injuries of the past year - still ongoing in Portland, where the Police are quitting in droves - are not at all affected by lavish approval and encouragement - and even attendance - by politicians and any failure to curtail them?

I've got a bridge to sell you, if that's the case. If they were being rounded up and incarcerated with purpose, this would stop.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Saying "He said several things" does not refute your false assertion where you insisted "I must deny" what he said. I stated what he said. If you have an exact quote to the contrary, where he told them to commit violence and crime, let's hear it. It does not exist.

The man spoke for 90 minutes. You remembered exactly two words: "peacefully" and "patriotically."

Could be that the people who were there remembered the other things he said.

Speculation as to "he knew" that people would commit crimes. Jury is instructed to ignore.

Legal semantics are a poor thing to hide behind in a discussion on ethics and morality.

We know that the FBI knew.
We know that the FBI sends daily briefings to the DOJ and the DHS.
We know that the DOJ and DHS (used to) report to Donald.
We know that they also report to the Secret Service to keep them appraised of potential threats to the President.
We know that all the president's public appearances are supervised by the Secret Service.

We know this. You are instructed to ignore.

Please describe and source past incidents where Trump ordered people listening to commit criminal actions and they did, as you assert in the bolded.

Already did.

Trump: ‘Knock the Crap Out’ of Protesters, I'll Pay Legal Fees

Trump's endorsement of violence reaches new level: He may pay legal fees for assault suspect

Trump did not specify which incident he was referring to, but he appeared to be talking about an assault in the audience during his rally Wednesday in Fayetteville, N.C. Police were ejecting a black protester, whom multiple videos show to have been loud but nonviolent, when a 78-year-old white man, John McGraw of Linden, N.C., hit the protester in the face.

McGraw, who was arrested the next day on suspicion of assault and disorderly conduct, told “Inside Edition” on his way out of the rally: “Next time we see him, we might have to kill him.”

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Trump was asked whether he would pay McGraw’s legal fees, as he once offered to do for supporters who rough up protesters.

“I’ve actually instructed my people to look into it, yes,” Trump responded.

Now, in all fairness, Donald's campaign eventually didn't pay the legal fees of the follower who assaulted the protester, but his offer to do so sends a message.

... which you are instructed to ignore.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The man spoke for 90 minutes. You remembered exactly two words: "peacefully" and "patriotically."

Could be that the people who were there remembered the other things he said.



Legal semantics are a poor thing to hide behind in a discussion on ethics and morality.

We know that the FBI knew.
We know that the FBI sends daily briefings to the DOJ and the DHS.
We know that the DOJ and DHS (used to) report to Donald.
We know that they also report to the Secret Service to keep them appraised of potential threats to the President.
We know that all the president's public appearances are supervised by the Secret Service.

We know this. You are instructed to ignore.



Already did.

Trump: ‘Knock the Crap Out’ of Protesters, I'll Pay Legal Fees

Trump's endorsement of violence reaches new level: He may pay legal fees for assault suspect



Now, in all fairness, Donald's campaign eventually didn't pay the legal fees of the follower who assaulted the protester, but his offer to do so sends a message.

... which you are instructed to ignore.

Would you like to post the entire rambling speech. Of course we remember those two words, as they are the relevant ones.

Your bald assertions that "we know" do not speak to what anyone knew who was present on January 6. Some of what is told is true (of all Presidents, FYI), some speculation, some are twisted lies in the infotainment crowd. The NYT has been nailed for lying repeatedly, for example.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Would you like to post the entire rambling speech.

I've done so many times before, but I don't mind doing so again:

Donald Trump Speech "Save America" Rally Transcript January 6 - Rev

Of course we remember those two words, as they are the relevant ones.

Relevant to you, because you're on a mission to absolve him.

After all, Donald is an authoritarian -- and the whole purpose of authoritarianism is to deflect personal responsibility.

Tell you what, though -- without using 'CTRL-F', see how long it takes you to find "peace" in his speech.

I'll wait.

Your bald assertions that "we know" do not speak to what anyone knew who was present on January 6. Some of what is told is true (of all Presidents, FYI), some speculation, some are twisted lies in the infotainment crowd. The NYT has been nailed for lying repeatedly, for example.

Spot the lie, then... if you can.

I'll wait.

 

[grasping the after wind]

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.

Who are the we that get to decide what is obviously wrong speech?

 

[LockeeDeck]

Seriously? You think the ongoing riots and fires and property damage and injuries of the past year - still ongoing in Portland, where the Police are quitting in droves - are not at all affected by lavish approval and encouragement - and even attendance - by politicians and any failure to curtail them?

A lot of factors entered into that specific situation and I don't think politicians played any major part in that. Specifically no one involved claimed to be doing it because of a specific leader.

I ask again, is a leader responsible for their followers actions if they are acting in the leaders name?

 

[Bradskii]

Who are the we that get to decide what is obviously wrong speech?

Us. You and me. Everyone else.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Us. You and me. Everyone else.

But we won't agree on it. So which of us gets to overrule the other?

 

[Bradskii]

But we won't agree on it. So which of us gets to overrule the other?

We don't. We agree to disagree. If it's a legal matter then a court will decide.

 

[grasping the after wind]

We don't. We agree to disagree. If it's a legal matter then a court will decide.

Who controls that court?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I've done so many times before, but I don't mind doing so again:

Donald Trump Speech "Save America" Rally Transcript January 6 - Rev



Relevant to you, because you're on a mission to absolve him.

After all, Donald is an authoritarian -- and the whole purpose of authoritarianism is to deflect personal responsibility.

Tell you what, though -- without using 'CTRL-F', see how long it takes you to find "peace" in his speech.

I'll wait.



Spot the lie, then... if you can.

I'll wait.

The only mission that interests me is that a balanced view be taken, instead of the hypocrisy we see now, where a view or a deed is just fine IF someone on the left does it, but horrific if anyone other than liberals do it. DONE with the hypocrisy.

So yet another false assertion that you have made about "my mission" that serves your bias, but isn't actually the truth or accurate.

I've already called out numerous falsehoods asserted here in this large post with all the replies. You go back through and find them; I'm not doing it again.

 

[Bradskii]

Who controls that court?

I think we can stop here...