4 ms·

Civil society cannot tolerate threats of violence or acts of violence. This applies to all aspects of civil society. There is a limit to freedom of speech. The

Civil society cannot tolerate threats of violence or acts of violence. This applies to all aspects of civil society. There is a limit to freedom of speech. There is nothing exceptional about social media except that it has taken so long to apply the sane principles of civil society. People who threatened the founding fathers with physical violence probably earned themselves a horsewhipping or a duel. People who resent society must find a way to express their resentment by democratic action, not through threats and violence. The founding fathers were not senseless followers of written words. They did not relinquish critical thinking by signing a constitution. The constitution was not a declaration of the end of critical thinking, education, and progress. Violence is a destructive cultural anti-pattern.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
I'm not entirely sure if it was a felony to threaten violence, but assault was a felony at the founding. The definition of felony was originally "crime that is punishable by death." You can commit assault without touching someone (but it has to be more than words). I would assume that there were quite a few more consequences for threats than there are today. I would also assume that there was quite a bit of tarring and feathering of people who held deeply unpopular beliefs, because this did happen.
nradov 4y ago
There are acceptable levels of violence. Levels of interpersonal violence today are much lower than when our Republic was founded. A few isolated incidents do not constitute a valid reason to restrict freedom of expression. If the cost of free speech is that occasionally some people die then that is an acceptable trade-off.