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 :
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 :