6 ms·

How so? Could you elaborate? Just to be clear, this is in no way intended as an endorsement of rioting.

by armada651 2y ago

ImJamal 2y ago
Violence is not speech. Is punching a person in the face as having a conversation with him?
- armada651 2y ago
  The term speech is very broadly defined in law. A purely physical act can be speech in a certain context. It does not have to literally involve an exchange of words. Many protests may turn into riots, that does not suddenly mean that the people involved in the violence are no longer expressing an opinion.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    The term speech is very broadly defined because there are a lot of ways to convey meaning. Some of them then become ambiguous and you have to resolve those ambiguities and that gets messy. But only the messy cases are messy. Riots characteristically aren't a messy case, they're violence in the same way that publishing a newspaper article is speech. Moreover, if you mess up the messy cases then you should try to do better but society will probably survive, whereas if you censor in the cases that are pure speech or don't punish the actions that are pure violence, you're the baddies.
    - armada651 2y ago
      > Riots characteristically aren't a messy case Riots are characteristically very much a messy case, because not everyone joins a protest with the same intentions. Some will join a protest intending a purely peaceful display of dissent, while others seek violent confrontation. On top of that repressive regimes will routinely declare otherwise peaceful protests a riot at the first sign of violence. Sometimes there are even saboteurs within the protest that try and lure out violent incidents in an attempt to get the protest to be declared a riot. Finding the right balance between allowing demonstrations and keeping the peace and order is one of the most challenging aspects of democracy.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > Riots are characteristically very much a messy case, because not everyone joins a protest with the same intentions. Some will join a protest intending a purely peaceful display of dissent, while others seek violent confrontation. The people intending a purely peaceful display of dissent don't smash or set fire to anything, even if the people standing next to them do. Now, the court may have some trouble here with evidence because you then have to distinguish these people from one another, but that has become much less of a problem in modern days when everybody has a cellphone camera and police can be issued bodycams. Either way this is a question of fact rather than a question of law. > On top of that repressive regimes will routinely declare otherwise peaceful protests a riot at the first sign of violence. Declaring something a riot shouldn't mean anything. If a specific person is breaking windows and looting they're breaking the law. If they're just standing there holding signs they're not. It shouldn't be too much to ask to have the cops arrest the criminals and not the bystanders.
        t-3 2y ago
        > It shouldn't be too much to ask to have the cops arrest the criminals and not the bystanders. Have you ever met a cop before? The only disincentive to arresting more people is a bit of paperwork, and the whole court system is stacked against the arrested unless they can afford non-court-appointed lawyers to pave their way. Guilt-by-association doesn't magically disappear from the psyche when handing someone power and a gun, rather it gets easier to apply indiscriminately because it's very hard for people to oppose the one with authority over their freedom and state-sanctioned license to be violent.
        porkbeer 2y ago
        I feel like you are the one who has never met a cop in a situation you were not a suspect , if you have and expouse publicly, that opinion.
        ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        What makes you feel that? The post you responded to makes complete sense and reflects countless instances of police brutality directed towards individual peaceful protestors. Here's just one example out of literally countless examples of police brutality directed towards individual peaceful protestors: https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/08/29/nypd-cop-pepper-spray-blm-protest-use-of-force-discipline/ https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/08/29/nypd-cop-pepper-spray-blm... Ironically (but unsurprisingly), this example of wanton and indiscriminate police brutality was the police response to protests against wanton and indiscriminate police brutality.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

How so? Could you elaborate? Just to be clear, this is in no way intended as an endorsement of rioting.

ImJamal 2y ago

Violence is not speech. Is punching a person in the face as having a conversation with him?

armada651 2y ago
The term speech is very broadly defined in law. A purely physical act can be speech in a certain context. It does not have to literally involve an exchange of words. Many protests may turn into riots, that does not suddenly mean that the people involved in the violence are no longer expressing an opinion.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  The term speech is very broadly defined because there are a lot of ways to convey meaning. Some of them then become ambiguous and you have to resolve those ambiguities and that gets messy. But only the messy cases are messy. Riots characteristically aren't a messy case, they're violence in the same way that publishing a newspaper article is speech. Moreover, if you mess up the messy cases then you should try to do better but society will probably survive, whereas if you censor in the cases that are pure speech or don't punish the actions that are pure violence, you're the baddies.
  - armada651 2y ago
    > Riots characteristically aren't a messy case Riots are characteristically very much a messy case, because not everyone joins a protest with the same intentions. Some will join a protest intending a purely peaceful display of dissent, while others seek violent confrontation. On top of that repressive regimes will routinely declare otherwise peaceful protests a riot at the first sign of violence. Sometimes there are even saboteurs within the protest that try and lure out violent incidents in an attempt to get the protest to be declared a riot. Finding the right balance between allowing demonstrations and keeping the peace and order is one of the most challenging aspects of democracy.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > Riots are characteristically very much a messy case, because not everyone joins a protest with the same intentions. Some will join a protest intending a purely peaceful display of dissent, while others seek violent confrontation. The people intending a purely peaceful display of dissent don't smash or set fire to anything, even if the people standing next to them do. Now, the court may have some trouble here with evidence because you then have to distinguish these people from one another, but that has become much less of a problem in modern days when everybody has a cellphone camera and police can be issued bodycams. Either way this is a question of fact rather than a question of law. > On top of that repressive regimes will routinely declare otherwise peaceful protests a riot at the first sign of violence. Declaring something a riot shouldn't mean anything. If a specific person is breaking windows and looting they're breaking the law. If they're just standing there holding signs they're not. It shouldn't be too much to ask to have the cops arrest the criminals and not the bystanders.
      - t-3 2y ago
        > It shouldn't be too much to ask to have the cops arrest the criminals and not the bystanders. Have you ever met a cop before? The only disincentive to arresting more people is a bit of paperwork, and the whole court system is stacked against the arrested unless they can afford non-court-appointed lawyers to pave their way. Guilt-by-association doesn't magically disappear from the psyche when handing someone power and a gun, rather it gets easier to apply indiscriminately because it's very hard for people to oppose the one with authority over their freedom and state-sanctioned license to be violent.
        porkbeer 2y ago
        I feel like you are the one who has never met a cop in a situation you were not a suspect , if you have and expouse publicly, that opinion.
        ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        What makes you feel that? The post you responded to makes complete sense and reflects countless instances of police brutality directed towards individual peaceful protestors. Here's just one example out of literally countless examples of police brutality directed towards individual peaceful protestors: https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/08/29/nypd-cop-pepper-spray-blm-protest-use-of-force-discipline/ https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/08/29/nypd-cop-pepper-spray-blm... Ironically (but unsurprisingly), this example of wanton and indiscriminate police brutality was the police response to protests against wanton and indiscriminate police brutality.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]