4 ms·

how much physical violence is enough? Getting jumped by a crowd of dudes for no reason? Getting held up at gunpoint? There was definitely some other stuff as we

how much physical violence is enough? Getting jumped by a crowd of dudes for no reason? Getting held up at gunpoint? There was definitely some other stuff as well, but those are the most memorable. I do admit that i haven't been in an actual warzone though.

CamperBob2 4y ago
So you're saying that you equate speech (not credible, specific threats or other extreme examples of non-protected speech) with having your life threatened physically. I wish I could understand where you're coming from. I genuinely do. ------------- Replying here due to rate limit: That's why I said "generally." I'm not setting out to invalidate or disrespect any individual's experience. It's likely that we'd have no trouble finding Holocaust survivors who would equate Nazi rhetoric with violence, for instance. They would agree with your position, given that such rhetoric arguably facilitated violence against them that would not otherwise have occurred. German law reflects this point of view. But my position has traditionally been that prior restraint empowers the bad guys to an even greater extent. You don't want Nazis spreading messages of hate and violence... but you really don't want them telling you what you can say, if/when they come to power again.
- johnny22 4y ago
  The quote was: > People who equate speech with violence have generally never known physical violence. Just wondering if that meets the standard or not. Not that I think all speech is violence though. I just think you setup a strawman.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  He said nothing like that.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    The important thing is that you're here to tell us what everybody else is saying. The ironic thing is that nobody can be certain what you're saying.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      Oh, I think you understand me just fine.
      - CamperBob2 4y ago
        Help, help, I'm being repressed. See the violence inherent in the comment section

CamperBob2 4y ago

So you're saying that you equate speech (not credible, specific threats or other extreme examples of non-protected speech) with having your life threatened physically. I wish I could understand where you're coming from. I genuinely do. ------------- Replying here due to rate limit: That's why I said "generally." I'm not setting out to invalidate or disrespect any individual's experience. It's likely that we'd have no trouble finding Holocaust survivors who would equate Nazi rhetoric with violence, for instance. They would agree with your position, given that such rhetoric arguably facilitated violence against them that would not otherwise have occurred. German law reflects this point of view. But my position has traditionally been that prior restraint empowers the bad guys to an even greater extent. You don't want Nazis spreading messages of hate and violence... but you really don't want them telling you what you can say, if/when they come to power again.

johnny22 4y ago
The quote was: > People who equate speech with violence have generally never known physical violence. Just wondering if that meets the standard or not. Not that I think all speech is violence though. I just think you setup a strawman.
anigbrowl 4y ago
He said nothing like that.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  The important thing is that you're here to tell us what everybody else is saying. The ironic thing is that nobody can be certain what you're saying.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Oh, I think you understand me just fine.
    - CamperBob2 4y ago
      Help, help, I'm being repressed. See the violence inherent in the comment section