Ethics of free speech in relation to violence

[LockeeDeck]

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?

 

[muichimotsu]

There's usually technical limits as regards what counts as "incitement" and that's why Trump avoided any conviction in the more recent impeachment trial, since it was vague enough that he could get away with it, even though any reasonable person could see the context and say he was inciting in that sense, even if he didn't explicitly say anything (because he's not that stupid, he's just a narcissist that fancies himself a genius, even if he's more just a privileged 1%er that barely earned anything in his business career that wasn't either by luck or outright screwing people over)

 

[Tom 1]

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?

No-one is unaware that incidents of this sort do happen. With that awareness comes some level of responsibility. If I let my usually very gentle, sweet natured dog out onto the street and she bites someone, i might be shocked and feel that I couldn't have possibly foreseen that. If I was aware that my neighbour's equally mild mannered pooch had recently done the same thing, then I'd have some measure of responsibility, the imperative to think twice.

The Trump example expands the idea further, as in that case it is not a one-off incident but a long term strategy. Trump has been spreading lies about election fraud, and other related conspiracy type stuff, since before he won the first election in 2016, and has been using carefully coded language and dog whistles to indicate to anyone listening that he sides with them. That kind of laying the groundwork to gain control of people on a subconscious, emotional level, indicates premeditation and so carries a greater weight of responsiblity.

 

[Andrewn]

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

I believe that I can write my opinion with impunity on social media bec I have may be 10 people following me.

If I had 80 million followers, I would lose the freedom to write or say whatever I think.

I can say whatever I want in a Bible study with 7 or 10 people attending but not if I was preaching in a church with 300 people attending.

The second point is authority.

I can ask a girl to go out for lunch or dinner.

But if I was her teacher or boss at work, then I don't have this freedom of speech.

In the case of Trump, he had both: a wide following and an authority.

So, he is absolutely responsible for inciting the failed coup in January.

If you have influence, you lose your freedom of speech.

 

[LockeeDeck]

I believe that I can write my opinion with impunity on social media bec I have may be 10 people following me.

If I had 80 million followers, I would lose the freedom to write or say whatever I think.

I can say whatever I want in a Bible study with 7 or 10 people attending but not if I was preaching in a church with 300 people attending.

The second point is authority.

I can ask a girl to go out for lunch or dinner.

But if I was her teacher or boss at work, then I don't have this freedom of speech.

In the case of Trump, he had both: a wide following and an authority.

So, he is absolutely responsible for inciting the failed coup in January.

If you have influence, you lose your freedom of speech.

I agree that authority and number of followers are factors but I'm not sure it's so cut and dry as you make it out to be. A person with only one follower might have a lot of influence over that single follower even if they don't have direct authority over them. The columbine shooters for example, it's widely believed one was dominate and talked the other one into doing it.

Your bible study example, 7-10 people is a more intimate group size and as a result it's likely you would have more influence on the members of that group than a group of 300. Although at a certain point peer pressure would also influence the group.

Does the number of followers change the amount of responsibility the speaker has for the actions of the followers?

 

[Strathos]

The legal threshold for incitement is very high, as it should be.

 

[Astroqualia]

Illegalizing incitement speech is garbage, it violates the constitution. Those who choose to act upon speech are the law breakers, not those potentially making valid claims to attempt to incite others against an unjust thing. For example, a call to overthrow this corrupt, satanic government should be held in good moral standard, as it is a just desire considering considering current state of affairs.

The fact that we can now legally charge some for some types of speech, clearly goes to show the constitution is just toilet paper for all 3 branches of government at this time. Speech is either restricted, or it isn't. And it is, against the very clear words of the constitution.

 

[muichimotsu]

Illegalizing incitement speech is garbage, it violates the constitution. Those who choose to act upon speech are the law breakers, not those potentially making valid claims to attempt to incite others against an unjust thing. For example, a call to overthrow this corrupt, satanic government should be held in good moral standard, as it is a just desire considering considering current state of affairs.

The fact that we can now legally charge some for some types of speech, clearly goes to show the constitution is just toilet paper for all 3 branches of government at this time. Speech is either restricted, or it isn't. And it is, against the very clear words of the constitution.

You realize you don't get to just say things are true without substantiating them right? Believing something is unjust doesn't free you from any culpability if you clearly and explicitly are encouraging people to revolt and act like the very thing many of them would criticize from the "other side", basically being hypocrites under their zeal for a parasocial relationship with a cult leader

People doing illegal things under incitement should still be held culpable, that doesn't mean the inciter has no culpability because speech is not always distinct from conduct when it has direct results to action and the like. And actions can also be considered speech, legally speaking, it's not mutually exclusive in regards to legal consideration

Restrictions are not innately tyrannical, you're equivocating and creating a false dichotomy to boot: is it oppressive to require people to follow traffic laws? Is it oppressive to say that someone doing something that has a high legal threshold to qualify that criminal action must be held to task and punished accordingly? You can't simultaneously talk about justice and then act like there should be no restrictions on things that can create an unjust situation, including speech.

Pretty sure the constitution is not monolithic and unchanging, otherwise there'd be no process to AMEND it

 

[Astroqualia]

You realize you don't get to just say things are true without substantiating them right? Believing something is unjust doesn't free you from any culpability if you clearly and explicitly are encouraging people to revolt and act like the very thing many of them would criticize from the "other side", basically being hypocrites under their zeal for a parasocial relationship with a cult leader

People doing illegal things under incitement should still be held culpable, that doesn't mean the inciter has no culpability because speech is not always distinct from conduct when it has direct results to action and the like. And actions can also be considered speech, legally speaking, it's not mutually exclusive in regards to legal consideration

Restrictions are not innately tyrannical, you're equivocating and creating a false dichotomy to boot: is it oppressive to require people to follow traffic laws? Is it oppressive to say that someone doing something that has a high legal threshold to qualify that criminal action must be held to task and punished accordingly? You can't simultaneously talk about justice and then act like there should be no restrictions on things that can create an unjust situation, including speech.

Pretty sure the constitution is not monolithic and unchanging, otherwise there'd be no process to AMEND it

It's not about what I believe, it's about what the constitution says and guarantees as unalienable rights from our Creator. And the fact that the idea of the slippery slope regarding our rights has been a path this country has been sliding down for quite a long time.
The point is, people are responsible for their own actions. Incitement speech is a victimless fantasy crime, just like many others where there are no victims that many people still get put in jail for, regularly. The crime rests on the person who takes action, not the person who spoke words. If someone falsely shouts fire in a crowded theater, if I don't smell smoke or see fire or feel heat, I'm not believing it. Those who go wild without evidence or any indication of what being said is true, their responsive actions are on themselves.

And this slippery slope is exactly why our country is going down the tube these days. Because soon hate speech will be illegal, and guess what comes next? Anyone speaking the harsh, not politically correct truth about real issues or criticizing those in power, will be committing hate speech. It remains to be seen, but before long, be seen it will. It's already being discouraged in society with the rise of PC in general, it will only inevitably get worse.

 

[Andrewn]

a call to overthrow this corrupt, satanic government should be held in good moral standard, as it is a just desire considering considering current state of affairs.

Did you quote this from Russia Today?

 

[Rajni]

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

I'm inclined to believe that I'm responsible for
my own actions; I don't come with remote, so to
speak.

So, in whichever way I use the inspiration I acquire
is 100% on me. No one else is responsible for
my behavior.

 

[LockeeDeck]

It's not about what I believe, it's about what the constitution says and guarantees as unalienable rights from our Creator. And the fact that the idea of the slippery slope regarding our rights has been a path this country has been sliding down for quite a long time.
The point is, people are responsible for their own actions.

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?

Incitement speech is a victimless fantasy crime, just like many others where there are no victims that many people still get put in jail for, regularly. The crime rests on the person who takes action, not the person who spoke words. If someone falsely shouts fire in a crowded theater, if I don't smell smoke or see fire or feel heat, I'm not believing it. Those who go wild without evidence or any indication of what being said is true, their responsive actions are on themselves.

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

And this slippery slope is exactly why our country is going down the tube these days. Because soon hate speech will be illegal, and guess what comes next? Anyone speaking the harsh, not politically correct truth about real issues or criticizing those in power, will be committing hate speech. It remains to be seen, but before long, be seen it will. It's already being discouraged in society with the rise of PC in general, it will only inevitably get worse.

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

 

[Astroqualia]

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?

Who said I was spreading lies and hate? Do you equate political correctness with love and truth? I'm sorry you feel that way.

What king and knight scenario?

No, people who use words should not be held responsible for the actions done as a result of those words, ONLY because of the existence of the slippery slope. Because with that in existence, things will just become more and more censored, and pseudological points will always increasingly be used to justify further encroachments on what types of speech is acceptable. My position comes from seeing what's wrong with this country and trying to avoid the downfall of this nation.

All speech is not moral. However all speech should be legally acceptable, but shame others as much as you want for using speech you deem is immoral.

 

[LockeeDeck]

Who said I was spreading lies and hate? Do you equate political correctness with love and truth? I'm sorry you feel that way

I meant hypothetically. Would your Creator be good if you did spread lies and hate that led to violence?

I genuinely don't know what the Bible says on the matter.

What king and knight scenario?

It's in the op but I'll restate it here.

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?

No, people who use words should not be held responsible for the actions done as a result of those words, ONLY because of the existence of the slippery slope. Because with that in existence, things will just become more and more censored, and pseudological points will always increasingly be used to justify further encroachments on what types of speech is acceptable. My position comes from seeing what's wrong with this country and trying to avoid the downfall of this nation.

All speech is not moral. However all speech should be legally acceptable, but shame others as much as you want for using speech you deem is immoral.

Morality and legality are two different things. Also not all corrective actions are legal in nature, de-platforming for example is a company and community decision not a government one. ISIS recruiters were de-platformed with no community outrage for example so lines must exist somewhere.

Also, it is interesting that you view ALL speech should be legal, very few hold that opinion even in the US. What of revenge inappropriate content for example?

 

[LockeeDeck]

I'm inclined to believe that I'm responsible for
my own actions; I don't come with remote, so to
speak.

So, in whichever way I use the inspiration I acquire
is 100% on me. No one else is responsible for
my behavior.

What are your thoughts on the king and knight scenario?

 

[Simon D]

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?

Yes it is called the responsibility of leadership.

If my boss complains about talking too much at work then I am right to think there is too much talking (some bosses don't mind some encourage it for team building). If a random person complains that the team talks too much then that's just their opinion unless it comes from management.

You can't be a leader and then wash your hands of responsibility. Trump is completely irresponsible.

 

[jayem]

All speech is not moral. However all speech should be legally acceptable,

This may be getting off topic. But not ALL speech should be legally acceptable. Perjury, or lying under oath in any legal proceeding shouldn’t be tolerated. Neither should making false advertising claims which results in people losing money on shoddy products or other scams. (Remember Bernie Madoff.) It’s another type of theft. Releasing classified government secrets is illegal. It’s OK to bad-mouth the IRS, but it’s a crime to understate your income or make up phony deductions. It’s generally not a crime to criticize a private citizen in public, but you could be sued for libel or slander if what you say is false. Free speech is not absolute. And even if what you say isn’t criminal, it doesn’t mean there won’t be—or shouldn’t be—consequences.

 

[Rajni]

What are your thoughts on the king and knight scenario?

I would apply what I said previously to that scenario.

 

[Bradskii]

If someone falsely shouts fire in a crowded theater, if I don't smell smoke or see fire or feel heat, I'm not believing it.

I hereby nominate you for the Darwin Awards.

'Stay where you are kids. We're not leaving until I actually see some flames!'

 

[TLK Valentine]

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

Depends on the context.

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?

Did the king have a habit of "indirectly" ordering such things? Did the king know that his knights have a habit of being proactive? (not sure about the historical case, but if so, then the king is indeed responsible)

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?

Did the president know in advance that his supporters were already planning violence, and rather than dissuade them in any way, direct them towards his political foes? (in this case, the answer is yes, so the president is most certainly responsible)

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?

I suppose it would depend on how long and how often this social media personality has demonized that particular racial group. You can't stoke a fire for very long without expecting someone to get burned...