Every civilized country on earth has figured out that there needs to be acceptable limits to free speech and that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of saying something.
freedom from the consequences of saying something.
Freedom of speech in the US protects you from consequences from the government, not anyone or anything else. You can still get fired, or at, for your free speech.
Op implied that free speech does not protect you from being murdered, which is technically true, but it’s nonsensical unless he believes murder to be an acceptable response to free speech. It might happen, and in fact it did happen, but it’s not ok so why even bring it up? Unless you think it’s ok, in which case you are an absolute moron.
Nowhere( in response to your post ) did anyone say murder was an acceptable response, just that if you murder someone , nobody is charging you with a violation of free speech because that would be nonsensical.
And the only reason they had to say that much is because your argument was incorrect.
If you want to argue proportional response, have at it, but you didn’t, you argued :
Society cannot allow or justify murdering someone for free speech. Op implied that murder was a response to speech, and I am saying murder should not be allowed or considered as a response. It shouldn’t be hand waved away like “ah well what did you expect”, or fafo or whatever. It should be condemned unanimously.
Society cannot allow or justify murdering someone for free speech.
That’s a nice soundbite.
Op implied that murder was a response to speech, and I am saying murder should not be allowed or considered as a response.
So those are two different things you have right there.
“Op implied that murder was a response to speech” , indeed he got shot because someone thought he deserved it.
“Murder should not be allowed or considered as a response”
This is where is goes off the rails a bit.
OP wasn’t saying (or implying) he should have been shot for talking , just that it seems reasonable to assume he had.
“I don’t care that this person is dead” isn’t the same as “this person deserved to die”
If you can’t see how those two things are different i can see why you’re struggling.
It shouldn’t be hand waved away like “ah well what did you expect”, or fafo or whatever. It should be condemned unanimously.
Subjective but you’re entitled to your opinion.
“He’s dead and the world is a better place overall” is also an opinion to which people are entitled (unless you’ve been arguing some other kind of free speech? )
And as it seems you are having a hard time with this i’ll add the explicit context:
" He’s dead and the world is a better place overall ( this doesn’t mean i wanted him dead, but i’m not sad that he is ) "
You can argue that it’s a better place with him gone, but it’s a much worse place because it happened and because people are celebrating, because it implies that society accepts murdering people who express differing opinions.
Every civilized country on earth has figured out that there needs to be acceptable limits to free speech and that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of saying something.
Freedom of speech in the US protects you from consequences from the government, not anyone or anything else. You can still get fired, or at, for your free speech.
s/at/shot ?
No because that would be murder.
Murder isn’t a violation of the US definition of free speech, unless the government does the murdering.
Still a crime, but not a constitutional free speech violation.
Op implied that free speech does not protect you from being murdered, which is technically true, but it’s nonsensical unless he believes murder to be an acceptable response to free speech. It might happen, and in fact it did happen, but it’s not ok so why even bring it up? Unless you think it’s ok, in which case you are an absolute moron.
Nowhere( in response to your post ) did anyone say murder was an acceptable response, just that if you murder someone , nobody is charging you with a violation of free speech because that would be nonsensical.
And the only reason they had to say that much is because your argument was incorrect.
If you want to argue proportional response, have at it, but you didn’t, you argued :
Society cannot allow or justify murdering someone for free speech. Op implied that murder was a response to speech, and I am saying murder should not be allowed or considered as a response. It shouldn’t be hand waved away like “ah well what did you expect”, or fafo or whatever. It should be condemned unanimously.
That’s a nice soundbite.
So those are two different things you have right there.
“Op implied that murder was a response to speech” , indeed he got shot because someone thought he deserved it.
“Murder should not be allowed or considered as a response”
This is where is goes off the rails a bit.
OP wasn’t saying (or implying) he should have been shot for talking , just that it seems reasonable to assume he had.
“I don’t care that this person is dead” isn’t the same as “this person deserved to die”
If you can’t see how those two things are different i can see why you’re struggling.
Subjective but you’re entitled to your opinion.
“He’s dead and the world is a better place overall” is also an opinion to which people are entitled (unless you’ve been arguing some other kind of free speech? )
And as it seems you are having a hard time with this i’ll add the explicit context:
" He’s dead and the world is a better place overall ( this doesn’t mean i wanted him dead, but i’m not sad that he is ) "
You can argue that it’s a better place with him gone, but it’s a much worse place because it happened and because people are celebrating, because it implies that society accepts murdering people who express differing opinions.
Reread that comment and not seeing how anything in it can be considered murder
The fired at part
Getting fired isn’t being murdered?
Oooh a joke… hehe… I get jokes.
Yes I meant the getting fired AT part
Exactly.
I’ve seen it summed it up thusly: “If your speech incites violence, don’t be surprised when people use violence in response.”
So I guess fights at professional sports games are justified violence, since someone probably incited it by insulting an opposing player.
This is unironically true for hockey lol
You’re confusing incitement and provocation.
Incitement involves actively encouraging action.
“you’re bad at hockey and your mother is large” might be provocation
“It is time for us to take up arms against the enemy” is incitement
I think a lot of people are confused about what constitutes incitement.
Yeah would be clearer to say “advocating for violence”.