3 ms·

Prior to your edit you made the claim that “violent speech doesn’t lead to violence”, which is so self-evidently false I was a bit surprised. The claim that sp

Prior to your edit you made the claim that “violent speech doesn’t lead to violence”, which is so self-evidently false I was a bit surprised. The claim that speech is always harmless is also self-evidently false. Volume of speech certainly matters. Doxxing certainly has a negative effect on the targets, despite the doxer not participating in any harassment or illegal action. Given the history of racial violence in the United States, a black person certainly can’t assume that threats of lynching are idle ones that have no impact on their lives so long as the lynching never takes place. To claim otherwise is naive at best and betrays the extreme privilege of someone who has never been the target of violent, harassing, or reputation-destroying speech. That’s not a sin mind you - simply a lack of experience and perspective. I doubt you’d be so sanguine about it if your neighbors posted signs around your house with big bright arrows that said “child rapist lives here!”. That’s not an explicit call to violence but the courts would probably take your side (and rightly so). For as long as the concept of “Free Speech” has existed there have been limits placed on it. Following someone around, pointing at them, and screaming “Rapist! Murder! Thief!” is illegal, will continue to be illegal, and should be illegal. The canonical example is shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater. Doing so has nothing to do with “organizing a criminal act” but is still illegal and you can and will be convicted of manslaughter if someone gets trampled to death. Are you arguing that people shouldn’t have legal culpability in such circumstances?

whatshisface 9y ago
>Prior to your edit you made the claim that “violent speech doesn’t lead to violence” I didn't make that claim, although I regret trying to trim down my comment because now I can't easily quote what I really said. Indeed, it's quite disingenuous to put those words in quotes! I claimed that it's not calling for violence that silences people, but the resulting violence itself. As a result if we just cool down the violence then no new restrictions on speech are necessary. Indeed, if the physical world is kept safe, then no speech will be scary. You might not think we can be trusted to keep the real world safe, but then how can you expect the same imperfect society to keep speech tamped down?
- KingMob 9y ago
  > Indeed, if the physical world is kept safe, then no speech will be scary. We are very, VERY far from that world, so you may want to reconsider for now. If some drunkard says to your face "I'm going to beat the shit out of you!", don't you at least consider he might do it?

whatshisface 9y ago

>Prior to your edit you made the claim that “violent speech doesn’t lead to violence” I didn't make that claim, although I regret trying to trim down my comment because now I can't easily quote what I really said. Indeed, it's quite disingenuous to put those words in quotes! I claimed that it's not calling for violence that silences people, but the resulting violence itself. As a result if we just cool down the violence then no new restrictions on speech are necessary. Indeed, if the physical world is kept safe, then no speech will be scary. You might not think we can be trusted to keep the real world safe, but then how can you expect the same imperfect society to keep speech tamped down?

KingMob 9y ago
> Indeed, if the physical world is kept safe, then no speech will be scary. We are very, VERY far from that world, so you may want to reconsider for now. If some drunkard says to your face "I'm going to beat the shit out of you!", don't you at least consider he might do it?