Ethics of free speech in relation to violence

[LockeeDeck]

'Something needs to be done'? What, like invite them around for a cuppa to discuss possible solutions equitable to both parties.

Public facing leaders are usually vague on the exact action to be taken or sometimes they contradict themselves. There are other cases where the language is coated in a layer of deniable snark or absurdism. There was one subreddit that consisted of nazis openly talking about who should be murdered but it was all done in baby talk.

How it's done isn't important the important part is that violence is implied to the follower.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I abide by their legal ruling -- that's what civilized people do.



If you think a judge is out of line, you appeal.

If several judges agree, maybe you were the problem after all.



I'd like to test that theory...




Once upon a time, a man comes home to find another man on top of his wife. She screams "rape!" and the man pulls out his gun (it's Texas) and shoots him dead...

... except it's not rape, it's adultery. The wife didn't intend or expect her lover to get perforated; she just panicked when hubby came home early.

The charges against the husband were dropped. The (now ex-)wife did five years in prison for manslaughter, based on her speech... because she said one word.

True story.

I wish to ask you a question: fair verdict, or not?

not.

 

[grasping the after wind]

From a legal point of view, the court's decision is final. It may not align with my personal view (or yours) but that's why we have courts. You can't simply leave it up to the individual. There are literally an infinite number of variables in matters such as this. And there are guidlines which will give you a rough idea of what you can and can't say. You'll find that in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): OHCHR | International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Other than that, without talking about specific examples, I'm not sure what else to say.

Then it is not really a court then that decide what is and is not acceptable speech from your POV but an international covenant?

 

[grasping the after wind]

What about a leader that says something bad will happen if action isn't done?

A nazi leader might say something like "something needs to be done about the minorities or they will take over". A follower would take that as a call to action and commit violence for example. The follower is responsible for their own actions but is the leader responsible for putting that idea out there?

So if a President were to say "we must pass this bill immediately or... " insert whatever catastrophe you please, what punishment should that President incur for fear mongering?

 

[TLK Valentine]

not.

Is anyone (morally and/or legally) responsible for the man's death?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Is anyone (morally and/or legally) responsible for the man's death?

The man that shot him is the only person responsible for the death. My thoughts on that don't depend upon legality or morality but upon objective cause and effect. People have diverse thoughts about what they consider to be moral and what they think should be legal but no one but the person that shot the man caused the man to die. Therefore that person is the one responsible for killing the man.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The man that shot him is the only person responsible for the death. My thoughts on that don't depend upon legality or morality but upon objective cause and effect.

1. this is an ethics and morality forum, so having some thoughts on morality would be more conducive to a productive conversation.

2. If your thoughts don't depend upon legality or morality, then you can't really say one way or the other if the verdict was fair, now can you?

 

[LockeeDeck]

So if a President were to say "we must pass this bill immediately or... " insert whatever catastrophe you please, what punishment should that President incur for fear mongering?

That's a call to action to pass a bill, not a call to action for violence. I do hope you can see the difference there.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's a call to action to pass a bill, not a call to action for violence. I do hope you can see the difference there.

It would take legality and/or morality to recognize a difference.

Based upon objective cause and effect, all actions are identical.

 

[grasping the after wind]

1. this is an ethics and morality forum, so having some thoughts on morality would be more conducive to a productive conversation.

2. If your thoughts don't depend upon legality or morality, then you can't really say one way or the other if the verdict was fair, now can you?

1) You asked about fairness. If I don't see moral or ethical concerns involved in deciding fairness then I can't pretend I do just because the particular forum is what it is.

2)Of course I can. As a matter of fact I did that very thing. Fair or unfair is a subjective opinion arrived at by whatever means one uses to measure such things. I used the measurement of fairness where the person who committed the crime i.e. the person that shot the other person resulting in that person's death ought ot be the one held responsible for his actions. In the case you referred to a completely different person is charged with a killing that t person did not commit. When deciding if the act itself is immoral or illegal, i.e. killing another person because one was enraged with that person, one must consult one's moral compass or the law but to decide if something is fair or not one only needs to examine the outcome and what led up to that outcome and make up one's mind based upon one's opinion of what constitutes fairness.

 

[grasping the after wind]

That's a call to action to pass a bill, not a call to action for violence. I do hope you can see the difference there.

Where was the call to action for violence in your example?

 

[LockeeDeck]

Where was the call to action for violence in your example?

How do you think Nazis work? Or stochastic terrorism in general?

The call to action is in the ethos of Nazi philosophy. Leaders in these groups generally present is as this group is causing societies problems and "something" should be done, with the "something" purposely left vague. Individual actors take it upon themselves to do "something" and then violence results.

The question is how much ethical responsibility the leaders bears in this scenario.

 

[Bradskii]

Then it is not really a court then that decide what is and is not acceptable speech from your POV but an international covenant?

They are guidelines. Countries can ratify the document if they see fit. Individual cases are decided case by case within each country by their juciciary.

Honestly, I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Yeah so? The “blame Trump” is not a defense sufficient to escape culpability but that doesn’t equate to Trump didn’t incite them or they weren’t acting because of what Trump said.

It is an ineffective response. If it had merit, it would be used. You can never prove that someone acted only because of something someone else said - except, again, - in the case of duress. No duress existed here.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

And as it pertains to legalities, specifically incitement to violence or unlawful conduct, the above is pure fiction. There’s no puppet master requirement for incitement, but what you’ve said made for an interesting storyline in the famed but aged Disney classic, “Pinnochio.”

That is a false assertion. Criminal incitement, if that is what you are referring to, refers to conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot or to insurrection. The federal government has enacted laws prohibiting inciting riots, violence, or insurrection. Those elements were not met here.

Stirring up emotions is NOT incitement. Trump did not mention or encourage violence.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

What about a leader that says something bad will happen if action isn't done?

A nazi leader might say something like "something needs to be done about the minorities or they will take over". A follower would take that as a call to action and commit violence for example. The follower is responsible for their own actions but is the leader responsible for putting that idea out there?

Not the same. Using passionate rhetoric is NOT a crime. All of the politicians do this in campaigning...a la "you have to fight for your rights!".

 

[grasping the after wind]

How do you think Nazis work? Or stochastic terrorism in general?

The call to action is in the ethos of Nazi philosophy. Leaders in these groups generally present is as this group is causing societies problems and "something" should be done, with the "something" purposely left vague. Individual actors take it upon themselves to do "something" and then violence results.

The question is how much ethical responsibility the leaders bears in this scenario.

I know how the Nazis actually worked which is the same way all totalitarian regimes work. They maintain oppressive power over the populace by controlling what people are allowed to say. As we are discussing the role of free speech in a democratically elected representative Republic and not a totalitarian regime, let me propose a more realistic and relevant scenario than a totalitarian, whether left or right wing, attempting to be subtle as if there were some reason for a totalitarian dictator to engage in subtlety. Say an avowed socialist says that the Republicans in Congress are the problem and something should be done about them. Is he directing his followers to go on a shooting spree at a softball game targeting Republican lawmakers? Or say a trained Marxist says police are the problem and something should be done about them. Is she directing her followers to riot and target police for execution?
I would say that the leader in the two situations I mention bear no responsibility for the actions of their assumed followers since they did not tell anyone to shoot, or riot, or target for execution. Scapegoating is not unique to Nazis and though I find it reprehensible to blame one group for all society's ills I don't think that censoring individuals , especially censoring them in part because they belong to one group that the censor believes is responsible for all of societies ills, is a reasonable reaction as I remain convinced that two wrongs do not equal a right.

 

[Gene2memE]

...Or say a trained Marxist says police are the problem and something should be done about them.....

I've always wondered, where is it that the Marxists get trained? Do they collect badges, like the scouts (get 10 workers to unionize and get the 'collectivisation' badge)? Once you get enough badges, then you're trained? Is there some super secret club, with a handshake?

I studied political economy and the history of economic thought at university, which included coverage of Marx for a solid two years. I think some of his critiques of capitalism, and some of his ideas about history and social dynamics, were pretty spot on. (I also think other bits were wildly off the mark).

Does that make me a trained Marxist?

Is there a college or course you graduate from to become a 'trained Marxist'?

Is it like Christian universities like Biola College or Liberty University, where there are graduate and post graduate apologetics degrees? Should I start calling graduates there 'trained Christians'?

What about people who attend Sunday school? Are they 'trained Christians'? Afterall, Sunday school is training, and its Christian.

Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I've always wondered, where is it that the Marxists get trained? Do they collect badges, like the scouts (get 10 workers to unionize and get the 'collectivisation' badge)? Once you get enough badges, then you're trained? Is there some super secret club, with a handshake?

I studied political economy and the history of economic thought at university, which included coverage of Marx for a solid two years. I think some of his critiques of capitalism, and some of his ideas about history and social dynamics, were pretty spot on. (I also think other bits were wildly off the mark).

Does that make me a trained Marxist?

Is there a college or course you graduate from to become a 'trained Marxist'?

Is it like Christian universities like Biola College or Liberty University, where there are graduate and post graduate apologetics degrees? Should I start calling graduates there 'trained Christians'?

What about people who attend Sunday school? Are they 'trained Christians'? Afterall, Sunday school is training, and its Christian.

Enquiring minds want to know.

I guess you might want to ask the lady that proclaimed herself and her cohorts to be trained Marxists. I surely have no expertise in what the exact criterion is for deeming oneself a trained Marxist. But if she identifies as a trained Marxist, or if she identified as a male stripper we aren't supposed to question it because that would be considered some sort of violence against her.

 

[Bradskii]

I guess you might want to ask the lady that proclaimed herself and her cohorts to be trained Marxists. I surely have no expertise in what the exact criterion is for deeming oneself a trained Marxist. But if she identifies as a trained Marxist, or if she identified as a male stripper we aren't supposed to question it because that would be considered some sort of violence against her.

That's a silly argument. If someone declares themselves to be expert in some aspect of life then it wouldn't be amiss to ask what expertise they had and how they might have obtained it. And to question that expertise if necessary. Especially as you admit to having no knowledge of the matter.

As in: What is your definition of Marxism? Where did you train in said political beliefs? How does your Marxism relate to how you live your life? Where do you see Marxism as being an advantage in the political arena? Etcetera etcetera.

Wouldn't you want to know?