3 ms·

> Then you can pretty easily ask: civil rights protests? Using speech--and violence!--but not violating that contract. You can say that now because you're on t

> Then you can pretty easily ask: civil rights protests? Using speech--and violence!--but not violating that contract. You can say that now because you're on the other side of the history. But put yourself in the dorm room of someone organizing one of the first lunch counter sit-ins. That organizer is using their speech to convince a group of people not to tolerate the segregation that made it illegal for them to sit non-violently in a public place. Now imagine a potential activist who agrees with your first paragraph hears the speech of this organizer. Do you really think it's clear that potential activist will end up participating in the sit-in? edit: clarification

rpearl 9y ago
"Do not tolerate the segregation that has made it illegal to sit non-violently in a public place." Let's see... whose speech is this organizer advocating intolerance against? It appears to be the business owners who say "some people cannot be here, because they are black." So, the business owners are violating the social contract I outlined: their actions are intolerant. The organizer is, therefore, not breaking the contract. Someone who followed the principle I argue for would land on the side of the protestors in this case.