Ethics of free speech in relation to violence

TLK Valentine said:

Nobody except you, that is -- tail end of post #163.

Click to expand...

Seriously, I have written multiple paragraphs about the fight language of politicians, the relevant topic here, and you decide to focus on this offhand final comment dozens of pages back and ignore everything I said? That's funny.

Me: "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."

The point, obviously, was just a supporting comment to my main extensive commentary - that "fight language" doesn't mean physical fighting when politicians use it (nor even when it's used in Little League or the big throwdown, if you are unfamiliar, HOCKEY (and the others). Just an offhand comment.

Why don't you admit my point that politicians use "fight for this and that" language all the time, no differently than Trump did - and sometimes even more vociferously?

LockeeDeck said:

You bring up other politicians regarding their remarks on the riots but no one at the riots said they were doing it in a politicians name. It would be different if someone during an interview said they were rioting because a politician said to.

The insurrection on the other hand had people live streaming themselves where they are heard saying things like they are there because Trump ordered them to and that they expected Trump to be with them. Now the level of intent for this outcome is in the air but the fact remains people thought they were following their leaders orders. With that in mind, is a leader responsible for a follower taking what they said as an order and being violent as a result?



We are getting off topic with nitpicking about how many were involved. Terrorist acts might only have one person involved that was following the ideology of a leader. The people who were involved clearly thought Trump ordered them to attack the capital. With that in mind, is a leader responsible for a follower taking what they said as an order and being violent as a result?

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? When they rioted after Harris said, "They will not stop. They cannot stop" but they didn't QUOTE her, you think that didn't register? Or when Waters show up and stirs it up with her words, but rioters don't specifically mention to the media that what Waters said registered, that this didn't add to the situation.

Wow, interesting way to parse it. So a few nuts jobs - and it is a few out of the counts we have read of up to hundreds of thousands at the rally - actually enter the Capitol Building and even fewer say stuff the media, like "Trump should be President" or whatever they said, this means the nut jobs are "doing this in Trump's name"?

So we listen to nut jobs, and not just watch what was said and what they do afterward...like with the year of rioting?

That's one perspective.

LockeeDeck said:

I would ask that ALL parties refrain from going down political rabbit holes and try to focus on the broader ethical questions involved.

Click to expand...

Works for me.

LockeeDeck said:

I would ask that ALL parties refrain from going down political rabbit holes and try to focus on the broader ethical questions involved.

Click to expand...

Fair enough -- but for some people, there isn't anything broader than protecting a certain ex-president from accountability.

That just goes to show the influence a leader can have on followers.

RestoreTheJoy said:

Seriously, I have written multiple paragraphs about the fight language of politicians, the relevant topic here, and you decide to focus on this offhand final comment dozens of pages back and ignore everything I said? That's funny.

Click to expand...

No, thinking you're not responsible for your words just because you don't remember saying them... now that's funny.

...and it's oddly appropriate, considering the topic of the thread... owning your words, and all the consequences of them.

Bradskii said:

I just told you. When the rubber hits the road, it's the courts. Now how about you give an answer yourself rather than spraying umpteen options all over my tablet. I'm eager to hear it.

Click to expand...

Do you mean to say that you would trust a judge's personal opinion about what speech is acceptable and what speech isn't? Would you want to have some form of punishment enforced upon those that spoke in a way any particular judge might find unacceptable ? I certainly don't find that an acceptable way to regulate speech but then again, unlike actions that are directly harmful to others, I consider all speech to be acceptable. If you wish to ask me a question I will gladly answer it. I mentioned only a few options hoping to elicit a bit more detail than just "the courts" on how to go about speech regulation. It seems to me that there would need to be some consistent guidelines as to what constituted unacceptable.

grasping the after wind said:

Do you mean to say that you would trust a judge's personal opinion about what speech is acceptable and what speech isn't?

Click to expand...

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

Would you want to have some form of punishment enforced upon those that spoke in a way any particular judge might find unacceptable ?

Click to expand...

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

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

I consider all speech to be acceptable.

Click to expand...

I'd like to test that theory...

If you wish to ask me a question I will gladly answer it.

Click to expand...

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?

RestoreTheJoy said:

Wow. That is the longest post I have ever seen, and I just don't have time to do it justice at the moment.

I will hit a few highlights, I guess.

Nobody used a sports analogy for the fight language. Perplexed by that statement you make. I compared political speeches to political speeches, and they all use language like that, meaning to fight for their ideas and principles, over and over. But somehow, we understand that if one faction does it (all the Democrats I listed, which is just a drop in the bucket) and express horror if Trump did it. That makes no sense. Trump is as responsible for the criminals who actually broke into the Capitol as Waters, and Harris and the Squad and all those who spoke vehemently are responsible for the riots in their followers. No more, no less.

The language was used in the EXACT SAME context.

Not going back to quote again exact statements made all of the political offenders to demonstrate that they meant exactly the same thing. You can do that on your own.

I get it. You don't like Trump and are glad that he is gone. That's fine. And irrelevant. He spouted a lot of opinions, and was certainly bombastic and obnoxious about it. So noted.

That said, there is always another election coming along. It won't be Trump, but it will be someone to the right of Biden/Harris, in my estimation, which certainly isn't hard to find.

Click to expand...

I get it. You don't like Trump and are glad that he is gone.

Click to expand...

How do you know? You and I have never had any exchange where I expressed any dislike for Trump. In your world, is it implausible someone can look at the totality of Trump’s speech, the events and facts leading up to the speech, the facts surrounding his speech, and conclude Trump incited the violence (not invoking the strict legal meaning) or is in part responsible, without any dislike as the basis of their view? You’ve completely ignored the real possibility someone can reach the conclusion I have based on the facts and logical inferences from those facts regard, as opposed to reaching such a conclusion out of any consideration of dislike for the man.

I compared political speeches to political speeches, and they all use language like that, meaning to fight for their ideas and principles, over and over. But somehow, we understand that if one faction does it (all the Democrats I listed, which is just a drop in the bucket) and express horror if Trump did it. That makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is well known you are of the opinion “that makes no sense.” This is no surprise. It’s been your view consistently now for what, the last few pages or more?

But saying it doesn’t make it so, and at this juncture is past the point of expressing a conclusion and reached the point of enumerating the facts ans analytically looking at the facts and logic of the arguments.

What your statement ignores is the salient point I made in my prior post. Of course it is possible the derision towards Trump for use of the phrase, where the same derision was conspicuously absent when others used the same phrase, can rationally make perfect sense when and where the context and facts distinguish his use of the phrase from the others using the same phrase and the differences rationally show the meaning communicated isn’t the same.

You are attempting to deflect into other areas, such as the use of the words, "I'll kill you" (something that should be said by anyone anywhere, in my view), implying that it is fine if you are joking around. That is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand regarding language politicians routinely use about fighting for issues that are important to them.

Click to expand...

Then you have not completely contemplated the logic of your argument. The analogy addressed a notion inherent in your reasoning of if Schumer and Harris others can permissibly say the phrase, then so can Trump, and the outrage against Trump is hypocrisy. Yet, this conclusion doesn’t follow from your reasoning.

Your reasoning operates off the idea of if one can permissibly say it, then so can another. But this isn’t true. My analogy you erroneously call a “deflection” challenges this notion by demonstrating just because the word or phrase was permissibly used elsewhere doesn’t mean the same word or phrase was permissibly used by someone else. In other words, it doesn’t follow Trump’s use of the phrase was proper or permissible on the basis Schumer, Waters, and Harris also used the phrase. Why?

As my analogy shows, factual context can change and alter what is being communicated by the same phrase being used. Translation, the factual context surrounding Trump’s use of the word or phrase can, and in my opinion did, change the message he was communicating when he used the same phrase others had used. Two people in my hypothetical used the same phrase, and by your logic, if it was okay for one to use the phrase, then the other may also use the phrase. Yet, my hypothetical shows it cannot rationally be deduced that use of the phrase by one is okay based on another’s use of the phrase.

Hence, logically, my analogy is germane to the dialogue, as it addresses an issue raised by your logic and inherently relevant to the overall dialogue. The idea since Trump, Schumer, Harris, and others all have the same common denominator, they used the same phrase, and if it was okay for Schumer and Harris to use the phrase, then it was okay for Trump to do so. However, as my analogy shows, this is faulty logic.

Trump is as responsible for the criminals who actually broke into the Capitol as Waters, and Harris and the Squad and all those who spoke vehemently are responsible for the riots in their followers. No more, no less.

Click to expand...

To reach this conclusion unsurprisingly requires an analysis of the facts surrounding Harris and Waters’ use of the same phrase in comparison to the facts leading up to and surrounding Trump’s use of the phrase. Your post suffers from a conspicuous deficiency in the enumeration of the facts of involving the speakers’ use of the phrase, and the hard to miss lack of any comparison.

I’m familiar with the facts surrounding when Waters and Harris spoke, and they are different from those facts pertaining to Trump’s speech on 1/6.

Of course, different facts surrounding the comments of the speakers doesn’t render the speaker responsible for the actions of the listener(s). This is why I went through Trump’s speech.

Not going back to quote again exact statements made all of the political offenders to demonstrate that they meant exactly the same thing. You can do that on your own.

Click to expand...

Excuse me? Your argument, your burden to do the unthinkable task of actually supporting your argument with facts. It isn’t my burden to find facts to verify what you’ve claimed.

The language was used in the EXACT SAME context.

Click to expand...

Saying it doesn’t make it true. Regardless of what the other politicians said and in what context, my argument and analysis of Trump’s speech, and on the basis of this analysis my conclusion Trump has some responsibility for the entry into and damaging of the Capitol building, isn’t refuted by what other people said.

I can concede as true other politicians used the same phrase, but their use of the same phrase doesn’t exonerate Trump from responsibility of the entry into and damage of the Capitol building. Telling me or anyone else someone used the same phrase doesn’t mean Trump isn’t responsible.

So, to accurately sum up your argument. Incorrectly think my view is based on a dislike for Trump. Make an argument, make conclusory claims, and fail to support them with any facts, and the logic of your argument is the porous idea since others have said it and it was okay, then the same is true for Trump.

RestoreTheJoy said:

Why don't you admit my point that politicians use "fight for this and that" language all the time, no differently than Trump did - and sometimes even more vociferously?

Click to expand...

Why would anyone “admit” something that hasn’t been shown by any facts to be true? You keep saying “no differently” but there’s no reason to accept this as true since, well, there’s no facts provided to even suggest it is true.

RestoreTheJoy said:

So we listen to nut jobs, and not just watch what was said and what they do afterward...like with the year of rioting?

That's one perspective.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? When they rioted after Harris said, "They will not stop. They cannot stop" but they didn't QUOTE her, you think that didn't register? Or when Waters show up and stirs it up with her words, but rioters don't specifically mention to the media that what Waters said registered, that this didn't add to the situation.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Those comments, and all the research I’ve done points to Kamala Harris making the comments on the Stephen Colbert show, a televised event, and her comments were not made at a political rally on her behalf, in which she spent weeks summoning her loyal masses to attend thereby ensuring a receptive audience to every word that poured out of Trump’s mouth as if he was Jehovah speaking to the masses from Mount Sinai, and promising the brew-haha to be “wild,” and then alarming them of the horrors to come if he loses and it’s up to them now because Congress, SCOTUS, and weak Republicans have abandoned them, to a crowd of people we know to have heard what Trump said.

Furthermore, if for a moment you were making an argument of causation, she made those remarks on the Stephen Colbert Show, and then riots occurred after, as evidence her comments in part or entirely caused the subsequent riots, then you’ve committed the well known fallacy of false cause. It doesn’t make any sense to argue since riots happened after her comments, then her comments were in part or entirely the cause. In Latin this fallacy is called post hoc, ergo, propter hoc, translated literally as after is, therefore becusse of this. It’s a reasoning fallacy for a very compelling reason.

Now, let’s dissect other reasons why this is a weak position.

but they didn't QUOTE her, you think that didn't register

Click to expand...

You make arguments from convenience and in doing so presume facts along the way. There’s no reason to think “they” watched the Colbert show when she was on and heard her make these remarks. You are presuming “they” watched the show when Harris was on and heard her make these remarks.

And you’ve divorced her comments from the context. As I stated in a prior post, context matters! “"I know there are protests still happening in major cities across the United States, I'm just not seeing the reporting on it that I had for the first few weeks," Colbert said. “That's right," Harris replied. "But they're not gonna stop. They're not gonna stop, and this is a movement, I'm telling you...They're not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop," she added. "They're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day...Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not," she concluded.

The context is protests, not riots.

And your reference to Waters’ remarks is just as tenuous as your invocation of Harris comments and for the same reasons.

And the reasons the “nut jobs” acted in part because of Trump’s comments is espoused in post number 184.

LockeeDeck said:

The general consciousness is that the riots would have happened if those politicians said nothing, meaning their words are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.



Not sure what you mean, people have actually tried to use that they were following Trumps orders as a defense after the fact. The amount of people is irrelevant for the question at hand anyway. It is indisputable that people in the insurrection felt that they were following Trumps orders. With that in mind, is a leader responsible for a follower taking what they said as an order and being violent as a result?

Click to expand...

The "Blame Trump" specious defense will not fly.

"Lawyers have not yet sought dismissal of charges or acquittal during a trial based on the idea that Trump incited their clients, instead making the claim as part of efforts to spare them from pretrial detention.

No defendant will be able to avoid criminal culpability by saying they were incited by Trump, said Jay Town, who served as the top federal prosecutor in Birmingham, Alabama, during the Trump administration.

“If anything, it is an admission to criminal conduct,” said Town, now the general counsel of cybersecurity firm Gray Analytics. “While this ineffective tactic may help with headlines, it will not help the fate of any defendant.”"

LockeeDeck said:

The general consciousness is that the riots would have happened if those politicians said nothing, meaning their words are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.



Not sure what you mean, people have actually tried to use that they were following Trumps orders as a defense after the fact. The amount of people is irrelevant for the question at hand anyway. It is indisputable that people in the insurrection felt that they were following Trumps orders. With that in mind, is a leader responsible for a follower taking what they said as an order and being violent as a result?

Click to expand...

Asked and answered. Only if the Leader exercises control over the actors and utilizes duress. Did not happen.

A speech can be unwise, can be taken in a number of ways, and words should be measured (not Trump's strong point), but what people do with a political speech is on them and in their own control unless they are controlled by a dictator, a la Hitler.

RestoreTheJoy said:

The "Blame Trump" specious defense will not fly.

"Lawyers have not yet sought dismissal of charges or acquittal during a trial based on the idea that Trump incited their clients, instead making the claim as part of efforts to spare them from pretrial detention.

No defendant will be able to avoid criminal culpability by saying they were incited by Trump, said Jay Town, who served as the top federal prosecutor in Birmingham, Alabama, during the Trump administration.

“If anything, it is an admission to criminal conduct,” said Town, now the general counsel of cybersecurity firm Gray Analytics. “While this ineffective tactic may help with headlines, it will not help the fate of any defendant.”"

Click to expand...

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.

grasping the after wind said:

Do you mean to say that you would trust a judge's personal opinion about what speech is acceptable and what speech isn't? Would you want to have some form of punishment enforced upon those that spoke in a way any particular judge might find unacceptable ? I certainly don't find that an acceptable way to regulate speech but then again, unlike actions that are directly harmful to others, I consider all speech to be acceptable. If you wish to ask me a question I will gladly answer it. I mentioned only a few options hoping to elicit a bit more detail than just "the courts" on how to go about speech regulation. It seems to me that there would need to be some consistent guidelines as to what constituted unacceptable.

Click to expand...

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.

RestoreTheJoy said:

Asked and answered. Only if the Leader exercises control over the actors and utilizes duress. Did not happen.

A speech can be unwise, can be taken in a number of ways, and words should be measured (not Trump's strong point), but what people do with a political speech is on them and in their own control unless they are controlled by a dictator, a la Hitler.

Click to expand...

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.”

LockeeDeck said:

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?

Click to expand...

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