3 ms·

Free speech absolutism obviously comes with caveats like inciting violence. This particular situation is no different. I see no change in stance.

• happytoexplain 1y ago
  "Free speech absolutism" was always applied just as vigorously - more so even! - to people "inciting violence" to a greater degree than in this example (they defended much more explicit glorification of violence and hatred than in this example, and even outright inciting of violence, as you call it, which this is obviously not an example of). The stance flipped polarity utterly.
  • refurb 1y ago
    "Inciting violence" has a specific definition as defined by the courts. It's not "we should beat up this ethnic group", it's "hey everyone, let's meet downtown at 5pm and strat beating up this ethic group". It has to be a specific and imminent incitement of violence.
    • UncleMeat 1y ago
      If we are going by the specific definition as defined by the courts then there is no way that a ton of these cases fit the bill.