Ethics of free speech in relation to violence

[RDKirk]

No, that is not true. Elements have to be met, and those can vary by state.

Please provide an example of someone convicted as a co-conspirator of a crime who walked away.

 

[RDKirk]

As expected.

So the leader is the person applying the duress, which makes him culpable.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Please provide an example of someone convicted as a co-conspirator of a crime who walked away.

Women who worked for Epstein walked away.

All sorts of mob informers walked away.

In the banking crisis, only one went to prison, as I recall.

Do you not follow the news?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I've "moved" nowhere. This is the ethics and morality forum. I have always been referring to morally responsible.

If I have not made that clear, or said anything to imply otherwise, my bad.

The fact that morally sometimes (but not always) leads to legally responsibile is true, but not particularly germane to the discussion. For the purposes of this discussion, moral responsibility is far more important than legal responsibility... although there's no reason both can't apply.



...which is what I've been saying All. This. Time.

No man, no law, no tradition, no god can take away your personal responsibility for your words and actions... although many people wish they could.

...but they can share in that responsibility -- but sharing responsibility does not cause it to diminish.

You said, and I quote: "The whole point of any authoritarian command structure is to avoid personal responsibility by abdicating it to an authority figure, but of course this doesn't work because as I said, responsibility isn't finite -- if we agree that the mobster is responsible for his actions, the boss who orders those actions can be equally morally responsible."

Hence, you moved to the question of morally responsible.

I don't think we are in disagreement that if one disobeys the mandates of God, he is responsible himself wholly before God for what he did; but some of this discussion veered into legal responsibility. They are not the same.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Point me to the inalienable right to free speech. Or for that matter, to an inalienable right to life.

Oh, you have the right. Whether someone will take it away from you for his own purposes, right or wrong, is another question.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

So the leader is the person applying the duress, which makes him culpable.

It is only duress if the person is unable to decline - his consent is negated (as in, there is a gun at his head, or his family will be murdered). The boss giving you an order isn't duress; it might be pressure. You can still quit and escape the order, unpleasant as that option might be.

Don't confuse these concepts. There is equal responsibility with duress, only. Not with pressure.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You said, and I quote: "The whole point of any authoritarian command structure is to avoid personal responsibility by abdicating it to an authority figure, but of course this doesn't work because as I said, responsibility isn't finite -- if we agree that the mobster is responsible for his actions, the boss who orders those actions can be equally morally responsible."

Hence, you moved to the question of morally responsible.

I don't think we are in disagreement that if one disobeys the mandates of God, he is responsible himself wholly before God for what he did; but some of this discussion veered into legal responsibility. They are not the same.

Agreed, they are not the same,although often connected.

This thread did veer into legal responsibility with the *ahem* "hypothetical" about a president ordering a crowd of his followers to charge on his enemies.

But I maintain that everything I've said in this discussion applies to moral responsibility, whether I specified it or not. (although in the case of the president, legal responsibility applies as well)

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Agreed, they are not the same,although often connected.

This thread did veer into legal responsibility with the *ahem* "hypothetical" about a president ordering a crowd of his followers to charge on his enemies.

But I maintain that everything I've said in this discussion applies to moral responsibility, whether I specified it or not. (although in the case of the president, legal responsibility applies as well)

But he did NOT "order" anyone to charge the Capitol and break in. That literally never happened. It's constantly repeated in a certain segment of the media but it did not happen. That's a false narrative, so we cannot proceed past a false narrative.

He said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," He never said to "charge the Capitol (or his enemies, as you say)" or anyone at all.

The criminals were arrested. It was all over in a few hours that afternoon when the building was declared cleared.

 

[TLK Valentine]

But he did NOT "order" anyone to charge the Capitol and break in. That literally never happened.

He told them to march to the capitol and fight.

And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, “I want to thank you very much,” and they go off to some other life, but I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.

So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

Now, bearing in mind that he knew this crowd was potentially violent because:

1. He'd spent the last 4+ years thriving on incendiary rhetoric, even explicitly encouraging violence against his political enemies in the past,

2. He'd spent the previous 3 months spinning stories about the massive conspiracy against himself (and by extension, against them) to steal the election -- stories which his followers swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

3. The FBI knew that there were people in the crowd who were planning violence, and the FBI reports to both the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security...agencies which both report directly to Donald.

4. In reference to Point 3, even if Donald was too busy/too lazy to read the security briefings that his staff prepares for him, the United States Secret Service does read them. And when Donald announced that he was going to speak to the crowd, the USSS would have told him they were plotting something violent and advised him against speaking to them. Donald would have had to ignore their warnings and instead explicitly directed them towards the largest nearby collection of his political enemies: The U.S. Capitol Building.

So... tell me again he's not, at the very least, morally responsible for what happened?

Or do you maintain he's still blameless?

He said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," He never said to "charge the Capitol (or his enemies, as you say)" or anyone at all.

He spoke for just under an hour and a half. What you quoted he said 18 minutes into an 80 minute speech -- and he never again mentioned the word "peace" after that

What I quoted, he said about 3 minutes before the end... and then the crowd started marching.

What do you think the crowd paid attention to?

Or is he still blameless?

The criminals were arrested. It was all over in a few hours that afternoon when the building was declared cleared.

No harm done, then? No moral responsibility for Donald because there was nothing to be responsible for?

 

[Bradskii]

It was all over in a few hours that afternoon when the building was declared cleared.

That sounds like your house had a guy in to clear some bugs out. Not a mob beating their way into the centre of the nations democracy leaving 4 dead.

 

[LockeeDeck]

But he did NOT "order" anyone to charge the Capitol and break in. That literally never happened. It's constantly repeated in a certain segment of the media but it did not happen. That's a false narrative, so we cannot proceed past a false narrative.

He said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," He never said to "charge the Capitol (or his enemies, as you say)" or anyone at all.

The people involved thought he ordered it. You can hear them in their videos during the attack saying as much. How they came to that conclusion is a matter of debate outside the scope of this thread and this part of the forum.

The question is whether or not a leader is morally (and potentially legally) responsible for the actions of people that believe they are following his orders?

Further is a leader morally (and potentially legally) obligated to speak out and try to stop people acting destructively in their name?

The criminals were arrested. It was all over in a few hours that afternoon when the building was declared cleared.

Actually quite a few are still at large including the pipe bomber and the people who beat that cop to death.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

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?

Prove that Trump did what you claim. As I recall, social media froze his accounts. I do not remember him going on TV to tell people to riot.

 

[LockeeDeck]

Prove that Trump did what you claim. As I recall, social media froze his accounts. I do not remember him going on TV to tell people to riot.

You seem lost. This is the ethics board.

The question is about moral responsibility of leaders for the words they use to inspire and incite others. The three scenarios in the OP are hypothetical and loosely based on real events. If you have an opinion on the central question then please share.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Prove that Trump did what you claim. As I recall, social media froze his accounts. I do not remember him going on TV to tell people to riot.

We just quoted his exact words... the ones he said to the angry mob in person.

I know the trend is to defend him at all costs, but really, this is just sad.

 

[stevevw]

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?

I think as far as free speech is concerned a better example would be the right to offend not intentionally and with malice but just as a matter of course in expressing a view or opinion. When it comes to human engagement and the persuit of the truth we are bound to bring up uncomfortable facts that may offend someone especially if the issue is complex.

The more people involved in the discussion the greater the chance that someone will be offended. The question is at what point do you draw the line and not be allowed to express your opinion. If you are speacking to 1,000 people the chances that you will upset at least 1 if not a group of people becomes greater. So should that stop a person being able to express their view or the truth of the matter.

What we are seeing today with identity politics is that some groups are percieving any opposing views to their position as violence towards them. So its not necessarily what the speaker says but how it is recieved and interpretated that can turn what may be a truthful message or language into something violent this causing harm.

 

[LockeeDeck]

I think as far as free speech is concerned a better example would be the right to offend not intentionally and with malice but just as a matter of course in expressing a view or opinion. When it comes to human engagement and the persuit of the truth we are bound to bring up uncomfortable facts that may offend someone especially if the issue is complex.

The more people involved in the discussion the greater the chance that someone will be offended. The question is at what point do you draw the line and not be allowed to express your opinion. If you are speacking to 1,000 people the chances that you will upset at least 1 if not a group of people becomes greater. So should that stop a person being able to express their view or the truth of the matter.

What we are seeing today with identity politics is that some groups are percieving any opposing views to their position as violence towards them. So its not necessarily what the speaker says but how it is recieved and interpretated that can turn what may be a truthful message or language into something violent this causing harm.

The right to offend is a real question but not the question at hand. In this case the question is about violence from people who agree with the speaker not by people who are offended.

Is a leader responsible for violence committed by their followers in the leaders name or philosophy?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The right to offend is a real question but not the question at hand. In this case the question is about violence from people who agree with the speaker not by people who are offended.

Is a leader responsible for violence committed by their followers in the leaders name or philosophy?

I heard a musician (I forget exactly who) say something along the lines of "I not only have a right to offend, but as an artist, I have an obligation to offend..."

I would argue, of course, that there is no right (legal or moral) to instigate violence.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

He told them to march to the capitol and fight.





Now, bearing in mind that he knew this crowd was potentially violent because:

1. He'd spent the last 4+ years thriving on incendiary rhetoric, even explicitly encouraging violence against his political enemies in the past,

2. He'd spent the previous 3 months spinning stories about the massive conspiracy against himself (and by extension, against them) to steal the election -- stories which his followers swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

3. The FBI knew that there were people in the crowd who were planning violence, and the FBI reports to both the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security...agencies which both report directly to Donald.

4. In reference to Point 3, even if Donald was too busy/too lazy to read the security briefings that his staff prepares for him, the United States Secret Service does read them. And when Donald announced that he was going to speak to the crowd, the USSS would have told him they were plotting something violent and advised him against speaking to them. Donald would have had to ignore their warnings and instead explicitly directed them towards the largest nearby collection of his political enemies: The U.S. Capitol Building.

So... tell me again he's not, at the very least, morally responsible for what happened?

Or do you maintain he's still blameless?



He spoke for just under an hour and a half. What you quoted he said 18 minutes into an 80 minute speech -- and he never again mentioned the word "peace" after that

What I quoted, he said about 3 minutes before the end... and then the crowd started marching.

What do you think the crowd paid attention to?

Or is he still blameless?



No harm done, then? No moral responsibility for Donald because there was nothing to be responsible for?

He did not tell them to go physically fight. He told them to make their voices heard, peacefully and patriotically.

The rest is your speculation. No one who listened to him rationally understood him to be telling them to go start a physical fight. Were there some criminal type outliers? Sure, just as there are whenever the BLM people have a peaceful protest. If you aren't blaming BLM and the politicians that vocally support them in the protesting/rioting for the past year and the billions in damage, then you can't blame anyone else simply because he doesn't align with you politically.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

That sounds like your house had a guy in to clear some bugs out. Not a mob beating their way into the centre of the nations democracy leaving 4 dead.

Sure...a mob beat there way into....a few offices and the senate room, which were all clear.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The people involved thought he ordered it. You can hear them in their videos during the attack saying as much. How they came to that conclusion is a matter of debate outside the scope of this thread and this part of the forum.

The question is whether or not a leader is morally (and potentially legally) responsible for the actions of people that believe they are following his orders?

Further is a leader morally (and potentially legally) obligated to speak out and try to stop people acting destructively in their name?



Actually quite a few are still at large including the pipe bomber and the people who beat that cop to death.

A few nutty outliers. You realize ten thousand showed up at this rally, right? And about 9800 just went home after. A couple hundred marched down. A few dozen entered the Capitol. It was all over in a few hours. It shouldn't have happened, but it is a lie to say Trump ordered it.

Nut jobs on the streets tear stuff up and torch cars and buildings every time there is a "peaceful protest". Yet, not hearing anything about controlling that.