> It's a matter of objective fact? Show me the experimental data... You're looking in the wrong place. It is objective precisely because it comes from logic, n

> It's a matter of objective fact? Show me the experimental data... You're looking in the wrong place. It is objective precisely because it comes from logic, not experiment. The question is not "which system better optimizes for a certain set of subjective preferences" but rather "does this act inherently justify this response". That is true only if the response is proportional—similar to the original act both qualitatively and quantitative—because the perpetrator of the original act cannot then argue that their action was right and proper while simultaneously claiming that the same action is wrong when someone else does it to them. Either they allow that the response is acceptable, or they admit that they were wrong to behave as they did. However, you cannot make that argument if the response is non-proportional, such as the case when responding to speech with force. > Sorry, but claiming the American legal interpretation is "objective fact"... I'm not making any claims about the American legal interpretation, but rather the principles of natural law which underpin the best parts of it. There is still a lot which the American legal system gets wrong on that score, including that travesty of a ruling made under duress to justify suppressing political protest against the draft (the infamous "shouting fire in a theater" case). > Or, say, planning a murder. The problem with that is not the planning, but rather the intent to actually murder someone, which is obviously not merely a matter of speech. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with planning a murder, per se; mystery-novel authors do it all the time. If you lead people to reasonably believe that you actually intend to commit the murder, however, then you shouldn't be surprised if they respond accordingly in self-defense against an imminent threat of irreversible harm.