4 ms·

> Sadly, I doubt you even recognize your small contribution to, and complicity with, the normalization of an Orwellian, dystopian society. Sadly, I doubt you e

> Sadly, I doubt you even recognize your small contribution to, and complicity with, the normalization of an Orwellian, dystopian society. Sadly, I doubt you even recognise your contribution to the polarisation of society and removal of nuance from social discourse. > No. Speech is NOT violence. I suggest you get a pair of earplugs. Threats. That's one form of violence. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, that's another.

rmbyrro 5y ago
> Threats. That's one form of violence. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, that's another. Threat is instigating fear of injury. Violence is causing injury. You can have your own personal definition, but from a legal perspective, threat is not a violent crime. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre isn't even illegal. Let alone a violence. Inciting panic is illegal. If you incite panic through yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, you'll answer for inciting panic and will bear responsibility for the actual consequences, if any, not for the yelling.
- tremon 5y ago
  Of course. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/violence/ https://dictionary.thelaw.com/violence/ this violence is not confined to an actual assault of the person, [..] whatever goes to intimidate or overawe, by the apprehension of personal violence, or by fear of life [..] equally falls within its limits
  - listenallyall 5y ago
    That's pretty creative editing there. Everything you quoted (and omitted via ellipse) is prefaced by "In cases of robbery". The part about intimidation only counts when it is "to compel the delivery of property." Since this isn't a discussion about a robbery or theft or possession of property, the entirety of your quote is irrelevant. Instead, read a little further: The term “violence” is synonymous with “physical force,” and the two are used interchangeably, in relation to assaults Speech is not physical force, and is not an assault, and is not violence.

rmbyrro 5y ago

> Threats. That's one form of violence. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, that's another. Threat is instigating fear of injury. Violence is causing injury. You can have your own personal definition, but from a legal perspective, threat is not a violent crime. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre isn't even illegal. Let alone a violence. Inciting panic is illegal. If you incite panic through yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, you'll answer for inciting panic and will bear responsibility for the actual consequences, if any, not for the yelling.

tremon 5y ago
Of course. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/violence/ https://dictionary.thelaw.com/violence/ this violence is not confined to an actual assault of the person, [..] whatever goes to intimidate or overawe, by the apprehension of personal violence, or by fear of life [..] equally falls within its limits
- listenallyall 5y ago
  That's pretty creative editing there. Everything you quoted (and omitted via ellipse) is prefaced by "In cases of robbery". The part about intimidation only counts when it is "to compel the delivery of property." Since this isn't a discussion about a robbery or theft or possession of property, the entirety of your quote is irrelevant. Instead, read a little further: The term “violence” is synonymous with “physical force,” and the two are used interchangeably, in relation to assaults Speech is not physical force, and is not an assault, and is not violence.