Sorry Eli, I respectfully disagree. Two things can be true at the same time. For example, it is true that we, as a society, have agreed that criminal guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt because we believe it is better that some guilty people go unpunished than for one innocent person to be punished. At the same time it can be …
Sorry Eli, I respectfully disagree. Two things can be true at the same time. For example, it is true that we, as a society, have agreed that criminal guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt because we believe it is better that some guilty people go unpunished than for one innocent person to be punished. At the same time it can be true that an accused person who is found not guilty may have actually committed the crime. With respect to free speech, It can be true that we, as a society, have agreed to draw the line, to use an example from the Supreme Court, at yelling fire in a crowded theater. Therefore, remarking, "Wouldn't it be would be really cool if someone yelled fire in this crowded theater" is tolerated free speech, but actually falsely yelling fire in the crowded theater is not. Similarly, as Eli posits, calling someone a Nazi or an existential threat can be protected free speech, while trying to kill that person is not, and it is the attempted killer who is legally responsible for their illegal act not the prior speaker who exercised their right of free speech. At the same time it can also be true that there can be a causal link between what one person says while exercising their right of free speech and someone else taking illegal action based on what the other person said. Thus, it can be true that numerous, prominent influencers frequently and repeatedly, over a span of years, calling President Trump a Nazi and an existential threat can have radicalizes listeners to those messages into believing they need to act illegally to neutralize that alleged threat. While we may have agreed, in the name of free speech, not to invoke the the power of government to prohibit such speech (or using ugly or coarse language or burning the American flag, etc.), it remains the right of all private citizens to exercise their rights of free speech to express their belief in the existence of a causal link between inappropriate or dangerous protected free speech and illegal actions of others, and to condemn such a speech and to stigmatize and shun those who engage in it. Thus, if you happen to be sitting in a crowded theater and the person next to you says, "Wouldn't it be cool if someone yelled fire," it is perfectly acceptable for you to respond, "No it would not, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking such a thought, and do not ever let me hear you express such a dangerous and stupid thought ever again." In fact, I respectfully suggest that if we do not, as private citizens, exercise our right of free speech to call out and condemn those who engage in inappropriate or dangerous protected free speech, then we only hasten the erosion our precious right of free speech. Strongly believing that, although we may disagree with what someone says, we must defend their right to say it does not mean that we should muzzle ourselves from expressing our disagreement. Further, I suggest, the more inappropriate and dangerous what they said is, the greater our obligation to express our disagreement and condemn what they said. It is disingenuous in the extreme that the same people who repeatedly call President Trump a Nazi and existential threat disavow any responsibility for the two assassination attempts (so far), yet at the same time call for President Trump to be prosecuted for the actions of others on January 6, 2001.
Sorry Eli, I respectfully disagree. Two things can be true at the same time. For example, it is true that we, as a society, have agreed that criminal guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt because we believe it is better that some guilty people go unpunished than for one innocent person to be punished. At the same time it can be true that an accused person who is found not guilty may have actually committed the crime. With respect to free speech, It can be true that we, as a society, have agreed to draw the line, to use an example from the Supreme Court, at yelling fire in a crowded theater. Therefore, remarking, "Wouldn't it be would be really cool if someone yelled fire in this crowded theater" is tolerated free speech, but actually falsely yelling fire in the crowded theater is not. Similarly, as Eli posits, calling someone a Nazi or an existential threat can be protected free speech, while trying to kill that person is not, and it is the attempted killer who is legally responsible for their illegal act not the prior speaker who exercised their right of free speech. At the same time it can also be true that there can be a causal link between what one person says while exercising their right of free speech and someone else taking illegal action based on what the other person said. Thus, it can be true that numerous, prominent influencers frequently and repeatedly, over a span of years, calling President Trump a Nazi and an existential threat can have radicalizes listeners to those messages into believing they need to act illegally to neutralize that alleged threat. While we may have agreed, in the name of free speech, not to invoke the the power of government to prohibit such speech (or using ugly or coarse language or burning the American flag, etc.), it remains the right of all private citizens to exercise their rights of free speech to express their belief in the existence of a causal link between inappropriate or dangerous protected free speech and illegal actions of others, and to condemn such a speech and to stigmatize and shun those who engage in it. Thus, if you happen to be sitting in a crowded theater and the person next to you says, "Wouldn't it be cool if someone yelled fire," it is perfectly acceptable for you to respond, "No it would not, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking such a thought, and do not ever let me hear you express such a dangerous and stupid thought ever again." In fact, I respectfully suggest that if we do not, as private citizens, exercise our right of free speech to call out and condemn those who engage in inappropriate or dangerous protected free speech, then we only hasten the erosion our precious right of free speech. Strongly believing that, although we may disagree with what someone says, we must defend their right to say it does not mean that we should muzzle ourselves from expressing our disagreement. Further, I suggest, the more inappropriate and dangerous what they said is, the greater our obligation to express our disagreement and condemn what they said. It is disingenuous in the extreme that the same people who repeatedly call President Trump a Nazi and existential threat disavow any responsibility for the two assassination attempts (so far), yet at the same time call for President Trump to be prosecuted for the actions of others on January 6, 2001.