3 ms·

If it creates a pervasive atmosphere of fear that results in physical violence or calls people to violence directly or indirectly, then I'd say speech can be vi

If it creates a pervasive atmosphere of fear that results in physical violence or calls people to violence directly or indirectly, then I'd say speech can be violent. I disagree with free-speech absolutism that pretends speech is simultaneously capable of moving the world and also either not an action or an action that cannot be violent.

slowmovintarget 3y ago
There are ways to accomplish allocation of responsibility (or blame) that don't include muddying the waters by declaring equivalence. Alice tells Bob to kill Charlie. Bob murders Charlie with a knife. Bob is a moral agent and is the one who committed the violence. Alice instigated it. The questions that must be answered as to how much or how little Alice is to blame are: 1. Does Alice have authority or coercive power over Bob, making her urging carry more weight? (Was it a command that Bob had some degree of need to carry out?) 2. Is Bob's moral reasoning (will) impaired, and does Alice know this? 3. Did Alice know that her urging would result in Charlie's death? 4. Did Alice intend for Charlie to be harmed? The answers to these questions attach guilt of varying levels to Alice. They also weigh on the punishment. If Alice is a commander ordering troops to commit war crimes, she's absolutely culpable. She has not been violent, but she is responsible. If however, Alice is a stranger on the ground who shouts at Bob to push Charlie off a ledge at random, Bob bears the majority of the responsibility. Alice is still to blame, but Bob made the decision to act and should bear the brunt of the punishment. This has nothing to do with free speech absolutism. It has everything to do with clarity. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is not violence, but it is morally wrong, and punishable by law. Speech can cause violence, but that doesn't mean that it is violence, nor does it have to be seen as violence in order to attach blame and consequences.
- locopati 3y ago
  If only the world were so simple and clear as your ABC example. However, I agree with your last paragraph so, to reframe, the kinds of speech I'm referring to, which I would call violent speech, but are not necessary to be understood as violence, fit into the category of morally wrong and should be punishable by law. At the very least, a private platform (like X or Reddit or whatever) can and should make choices about whether to allow speech that creates an atmosphere that fosters violence.

slowmovintarget 3y ago

There are ways to accomplish allocation of responsibility (or blame) that don't include muddying the waters by declaring equivalence. Alice tells Bob to kill Charlie. Bob murders Charlie with a knife. Bob is a moral agent and is the one who committed the violence. Alice instigated it. The questions that must be answered as to how much or how little Alice is to blame are: 1. Does Alice have authority or coercive power over Bob, making her urging carry more weight? (Was it a command that Bob had some degree of need to carry out?) 2. Is Bob's moral reasoning (will) impaired, and does Alice know this? 3. Did Alice know that her urging would result in Charlie's death? 4. Did Alice intend for Charlie to be harmed? The answers to these questions attach guilt of varying levels to Alice. They also weigh on the punishment. If Alice is a commander ordering troops to commit war crimes, she's absolutely culpable. She has not been violent, but she is responsible. If however, Alice is a stranger on the ground who shouts at Bob to push Charlie off a ledge at random, Bob bears the majority of the responsibility. Alice is still to blame, but Bob made the decision to act and should bear the brunt of the punishment. This has nothing to do with free speech absolutism. It has everything to do with clarity. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is not violence, but it is morally wrong, and punishable by law. Speech can cause violence, but that doesn't mean that it is violence, nor does it have to be seen as violence in order to attach blame and consequences.

locopati 3y ago
If only the world were so simple and clear as your ABC example. However, I agree with your last paragraph so, to reframe, the kinds of speech I'm referring to, which I would call violent speech, but are not necessary to be understood as violence, fit into the category of morally wrong and should be punishable by law. At the very least, a private platform (like X or Reddit or whatever) can and should make choices about whether to allow speech that creates an atmosphere that fosters violence.