Ethics of free speech in relation to violence

Bradskii said:

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?

Click to expand...

I would personally want to question anyone's self identification ads people tend to be very good at deceiving themselves. The politically correct rule that insist it is somehow an attack to question anyone about it is not my rule so I am not the one you should be debating on it. However, the nice woman that has invested so much money into housing for herself did not claim expertise in Marxism she just claimed to have been trained in it. The citizens of the USSR could have claimed as much. I doubt her training was quite as rigorous or costly or as tragic as theirs was. I also doubt that their plight and the plight of the millions of others who have universally suffered under any Marxist regimes was emphasized in her training.

grasping the after wind said:

I would personally want to question anyone's self identification ads people tend to be very good at deceiving themselves. The politically correct rule that insist it is somehow an attack to question anyone about it is not my rule so I am not the one you should be debating on it. However, the nice woman that has invested so much money into housing for herself did not claim expertise in Marxism she just claimed to have been trained in it. The citizens of the USSR could have claimed as much. I doubt her training was quite as rigorous or costly or as tragic as theirs was. I also doubt that their plight and the plight of the millions of others who have universally suffered under any Marxist regimes was emphasized in her training.

Click to expand...

I don't know about you but I do my best to call it as I see it. If it walks like a duck etc. So this bogey term 'Marxist' is a about as applicable in this case (and I assume we are talking about Patrice Cullors) as it would be describing my political viewpoint. Even if it is self proclaimed.

The way she lives her life seems to have very little to do with Marxism. She seems to have earned a reasonable income over the last few years and I don't begrudge her that. But excuse my eyes rolling a touch if she describes her political ideology as being Marxist. What she has trained in is political activism and community organiser.

RestoreTheJoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, your butchering of the legal doctrine of incitement is a “false assertion.” Here’s a legal lesson for you.

The incitement test is a composite of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Those two decisions are Brandenburg v Ohio and Indiana v Hess, the latter expounding upon the applicability of the test.

“constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Your suggestion “urge” is incitement is a “false assertion.”

The phrase “naturally lead others” is confusingly ambiguous and completely devoid of any use in the incitement test used by SCOTUS.

Finally, there isn’t any of your suggested puppet master requirement, as I stated before.

Trump did not mention or encourage violence

Click to expand...

And if it were rational to think one must explicitly “mention” the word “violence” then you’d have an excellent point.

NotreDame said:

Yes, your butchering of the legal doctrine of incitement is a “false assertion.” Here’s a legal lesson for you.

The incitement test is a composite of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Those two decisions are Brandenburg v Ohio and Indiana v Hess, the latter expounding upon the applicability of the test.

“constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Your suggestion “urge” is incitement is a “false assertion.”

The phrase “naturally lead others” is confusingly ambiguous and completely devoid of any use in the incitement test used by SCOTUS.

Finally, there isn’t any of your suggested puppet master requirement, as I stated before.



And if it were rational to think one must explicitly “mention” the word “violence” then you’d have an excellent point.

Click to expand...

No need to lecture me on Brandenburg, or on Hess v. Indiana which essentially held that Speech that advocates illegal activity or the use of force is still protected under the First Amendment unless it is both intended and likely to provoke imminent illegal activity.

I'm well aware. You might note yet again, as I have already pointed out, that Trump never advocated illegal activity OR use of force. That language simply is not there. "Fight like hell (for your rights)" coming from a politician is standard language; they ALL use it all the time, as the many examples I (and others) have given in this huge post will attest. "Make you voice peacefully and patriotically heard" just doesn't get you to where you want to go.

Hess, on the other hand, shouted something that actually does suggest violence and personal involvement should the event occur, i.e. “We’ll take the f******street later. The Indiana Supreme Court correctly held that Hess's outburst did not have the probable effect of provoking others into immediately or inevitably embarking on a course of illegal conduct (though there was a dissent, and reasonable points made there too).

Trump was acquitted of the insurrection charge, you may recall. He was not convicted. Now had he said, "Let's go charge the Capitol, break in, find congressional members and force them (to do whatever legal process or undoing of the election some have fantasized that these criminals breaking in actually had ability to make happen), well, then you would have a case.

Bradskii said:

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?

Click to expand...

He doesn't want to know, he just wants to use it as a convenient excuse to automatically dismiss anything they (or anyone inspired in any way by them) say or do.

LockeeDeck said:

Is a speaker responsible for the actions of someone who listened to their words and if so to what extent?

Click to expand...

What were the words?

Are we talking about a mob boss ordering his hitman to kill someone?

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?

Click to expand...

No.

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?

Click to expand...

No.

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?

Click to expand...

No.

LockeeDeck said:

So only direct orders matter?

It's worth noting that mob bosses tend to coat their orders in layers of implied meanings and veiled threats. This means the bosses minions have to interpret words that aren't direct orders as orders.

Click to expand...

Watch a lot of movies huh?

The king example the knights reasoned that the wishes of the king were as good as orders and failure to carry them out would carry the same punishment as failure to carry out a direct order. Namely death.

Click to expand...

No sane king throws away knights for not doing what they weren't told to do.

The rally example the mob felt they were carrying out the presidents orders with failure to carry them out meaning losing the country.

The social media example there are no orders just a vision and people in the way and if someone doesn't do something the vision won't happen.

Click to expand...

People are responsible for their own actions.

Would you have the Nuremburg trials reversed because nazis were following orders?

LockeeDeck said:

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?

Click to expand...

No, a speaker should not be held accountable for a person following through on something the speaker said. Our society needs to learn self-control and what is right and what is wrong (and patience for that matter too). We are so quick to blame others for ills that we do or that fall upon us. Even if someone yells "fire" in a crowded room. If we think first about getting everybody out of the room safely and not just ourselves, things would go so much smoother. It needs to be taught and practiced - self restraint, think before acting, be aware, patience.

LockeeDeck said:

So your Creator is good with you spreading lies and hate that inspires others to commit violence?

What are your thoughts on the king and knight scenario?



So no action should be taken against the person who shouted fire even if people were hurt?



Defining what counts as hate speech is probably a whole other thread. Does this mean you view ALL speech as moral and acceptable?

Click to expand...

God gave Man (Woman) freewill to choose between right and wrong. In God's eyes lying is wrong (a sin) but He gives us the choice to do it or not. Don't do it, your in good with God, do it, you dig your own hole.

As for spreading hate, you may need to define that a little bit more. If something is true but it displeases someone else's ears to hear, there is nothing that can be done. But if something is false, then that's lying again and you dig your own hole.

Now the question is, how do we know if its true or not. A true Christian knows where to find the Truth.

LockeeDeck said:

Are you saying that never happens? Does that mean anyone who does use implied orders and veiled threats should go free?

Click to expand...

Give me a veiled threat.

So the king bears no responsibility for the knights interpreting his words as orders?

Click to expand...

No.

The question isn't if people are responsible for their own actions the question is if leaders are responsible for their followers executing implied orders.

Click to expand...

No.

LockeeDeck said:

It sounds like you feel God holds people accountable for lying but not for any results of their lies. That's interesting in that God would only care about individual actions and not outcomes.

In any case the question is more for people to hold other people accountable not God per say. Should any corrective action be taken if someone is spreading lies that lead to harm?



What is a "true Christian" is a whole rabbit hole in it's own right. Just know that there are many "Christian" hate groups that preach white supremacy.

Click to expand...

God does care about outcomes, He is extremely saddened by our poor choices hence their terrible outcomes. His glory is shown when His followers respond caringly and responsively to these outcome to show humanity that there is Hope.

A true Christian knows his Father and His Father knows him. There's no rabbit hole; God created all humans and loves them all - black, red, yellow, white, pink, ... Hence any Christian who hates anyone of God's children isn't Christian. But just because you disagree with a person doesn't mean you hate them either.

LockeeDeck said:

A mob boss asks a subordinate to do something and mentions that subordinates daughter out of nowhere, with the implication that if the subordinate fails something would happen to the daughter.



Interesting, so a leader is free from all responsibility so long as they are unclear.

Click to expand...

Well let's try this a different way....

Let's say that a popular commoner claims that the king's "system" is "unjust" and "rooted in evil" and "must be dismantled"...

Then those peasants listening to this commoner decide to "burn the system down" and go on a rampage for several months destroying many villages and towns.

Should the king send his armies to slaughter the mob? Should he arrest the commoner causing this trouble and have them drawn and quartered?

LockeeDeck said:

Are you saying that the commoner is responsible for the actions of people who agree but a leader is not responsible for the actions of direct subordinates that interpret orders?

Click to expand...

Not the person you are addressing, but no....each person is morally responsible for his own choices and actions (again, absent duress).

LockeeDeck said:

Are you saying that the commoner is responsible for the actions of people who agree but a leader is not responsible for the actions of direct subordinates that interpret orders?

Click to expand...

I'm asking you a question .

Can you answer?