Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

Would you consider constant verbal harassment to be an exception, or should somebody be able to tolerate even that without resorting to violence — even if it is likely they have already told the perpetrator that they will resort to violence if the verbal harassment does not stop?

(For this example, let us define verbal harassment as continually saying something at least 3 times minimum AFTER the person has clearly established they do not want to argue or be subjected to you shouting at them about something you disagree with? Which would include a situation where they either were going to physically restrain you or threaten your right to escape the harassment when you have clearly already asked them to stop doing it.

In the above situation, I personally WOULD classify violence as a just reaction because it would fall under the very reasonable self-defence exception.

That's a perfect example.

Picture Joe Sixpack being verbally berated by his life parter, Brad, over a suspected affair. Joe figures he just can't take the constant accusations and innuendos and finally cold-cocks Brad. What else can he do, right?

Now lets put Joe in a police interrogation room where he is being repeatedly accused of a crime. Detective Doughnut constantly lies about having evidence and witnesses. Detective Doughnut even promises to personally see to it that Joe is raped in jail. Miraculously, Joe will find the self control necessary to not knock out Detective Doughnut's teeth.

Unfortunately for Joe, he probably won't have enough self control to demand a lawyer and keep his mouth shut, which is what Detective Doughnut is counting on.

In both cases, it's Joe's fault for allowing his emotions to override his common sense. He may have a tendency towards violence, but only if he thinks he can get away with it. He'll punch his life partner in the privacy of their home, but not a cop in a police station. In the first case Joe is using his emotions as an excuse. In the second case Joe is allowing himself to be manipulated by his emotions. Joe is just a bully and a coward, as is anyone who responds to words with violence. He is also emotionally immature, as he can be tricked into doing things against his best interests.

Are there cowards and bullies out there in the world? Yes. Should people refrain from telling the truth out of fear of these people? I guess that's a question we all have to answer for ourselves.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Joe is just a bully and a coward, as is anyone who responds to words with violence.

That sounds like a cop out to me. I find hiding behind this excuse to be a shield for cowards as well.

The words themselves may not interact with the physical but saying the words is an action. Add a snarl or a squaring off stance or something similar and it isn't just words we are talking about.

The "freedom of speech" you refer to in the OP does not exist, has never existed, and is certainly not a protected right. I'm not sure why some people think it is.

There are plenty of legal remedies to someone who thinks they are exercising freedom of speech, such as libel and slander lawsuits. There are plenty of administrative remedies to someone who thinks they are exercising freedom of speech, such as being fired from their job.

The ONLY protected freedom of speech is that which is very plainly outlined in the Constitution under the First Amendment as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's it. The end. Any argument about free speech which does not fall under the above IS NOT the exercise of free speech, and can come with consequences depending on said speech, as we have seen routinely, especially if the content of said speech can be construed as harmful to said person's place of employment.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
The "freedom of speech" you refer to in the OP does not exist, has never existed, and is certainly not a protected right. I'm not sure why some people think it is.

There are plenty of legal remedies to someone who thinks they are exercising freedom of speech, such as libel and slander lawsuits. There are plenty of administrative remedies to someone who thinks they are exercising freedom of speech, such as being fired from their job.

The ONLY protected freedom of speech is that which is very plainly outlined in the Constitution under the First Amendment as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's it. The end. Any argument about free speech which does not fall under the above IS NOT the exercise of free speech, and can come with consequences depending on said speech, as we have seen routinely, especially if the content of said speech can be construed as harmful to said person's place of employment.

I've seen people advocating even for death for questioning authority, blasphemy laws. And I've also seen people advocating for laws to criminalize even drawings. Such tyrannical ways, such injustice, yet there are those who defend it.

That just prove how unfit the population is to elect their leaders and how unfit the leaders are.

We're soon to see the birth of a new superior species, do you really expect it to conform to such irrationality. As intellect and knowledge increases, most humans expect convergence towards an ideal behavior, they believe a being with infinite intelligence and knowledge will know best, and they call this limit of capacity a God.

Humans as they are now can be easily killed, and put under submission. Posthumanity, cannot be easily killed and will be able to put under submission all these unfit governments. Like all the beasts of the earth came under the submission of man, the superior species. So too will man, just another type of beast, fall under submission of a superior species.

Enjoy your beastly ways while you can. Either resource depletion and climate change will destroy your world or if technology comes to the rescue, it will be remolded into a far better place, with all your leaders put into their proper place.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yelling "fire" when there is no fire is not protected speech


civil-liberties.yoexpert.com..."fire"-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html

So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.

a reply to: usernameconspiracy

The "freedom of speech" you refer to in the OP does not exist, has never existed, and is certainly not a protected right. I'm not sure why some people think it is.

There are plenty of legal remedies to someone who thinks they are exercising freedom of speech, such as libel and slander lawsuits. There are plenty of administrative remedies to someone who thinks they are exercising freedom of speech, such as being fired from their job.

The ONLY protected freedom of speech is that which is very plainly outlined in the Constitution under the First Amendment as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's it. The end. Any argument about free speech which does not fall under the above IS NOT the exercise of free speech, and can come with consequences depending on said speech, as we have seen routinely, especially if the content of said speech can be construed as harmful to said person's place of employment.

The free speech I am referring to is a philosophical principle and fundamental human right, and as an idea or belief, it surely exists. Whether it is allowed or protected or believed in says very little about the idea of freedom of speech itself, and more about the impositions placed upon it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The free speech I am referring to is a philosophical principle and fundamental human right, and as an idea or belief, it surely exists.

In that sense, so do unicorns.

a reply to: daskakik

In that sense, so do unicorns.

Yes the idea of a unicorn exists.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But unicorns don't, neither does freedom of speech.

It's just your imagination.

a reply to: daskakik

But unicorns don't, neither does freedom of speech.

It's just your imagination.

As I said, freedom of speech is a principle, not a mythical creature.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
As I said, freedom of speech is a principle, not a mythical creature.

It's mythical alright.

It's ok some people believe in fairies as well.

a reply to: daskakik

It's mythical alright.

It's ok some people believe in fairies as well.

That's like saying the Heisenburg-Uncertainty Principle or the scientific method are like fairies.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sure, you don't have to believe in those either.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

We are talking about consequences are we not?

a reply to: daskakik

Sure, you don't have to believe in those either.

That's right. No one has to believe in freedom of speech—I wager most don't—but not believing it is far worse to society at large than believing and defending it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That is just your opinion.

They might also believe in freedom of speech, just not the way you do. Maybe that is even better for society.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

a reply to: daskakik

That is just your opinion.

They might also believe in freedom of speech, just not the way you do. Maybe that is even better for society.

We can deal in maybes all you want, but without argument maybes is all we are left with.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Sounds about right.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
We can deal in maybes all you want, but without argument maybes is all we are left with.

That is all we have to deal in anyway.

Arguments based on speculation and opinion are going to do away with the maybes.