Anonymous #1 1d

Let me guess, chud the builder fan?

13

Anonymous OP 1d

Idk what you're on about

2

Anonymous #1 1d

i mean there are laws that legitimately protect you from legal ramifications of physical altercations if someone’s speech includes “fighting words” .. so yes, some people do have the right to assault someone over their speech bc the speech provoked it, and the provocateur is legally in the wrong 🤷🏼‍♀️

6

Anonymous #3 1d

Fighting words are "hey wanna fight" or "lets tussle" or "take it outside" not someone's political beliefs

-1

Anonymous #3 1d

I guess I should clarify though that I meant their protected speech

2

Anonymous #1 1d

well its also insults, dog whistles, and just other offensive (meaning on the offense, opposite of defensive) speech that instigates someone to become agitated. even if what they’re saying is “free speech”, the act of speaking provocatively is sometimes enough legally to absolve the person of any criminal charges if they assault the provocateur. i think #2 was mentioning some streamer who shot someone after he was provoking them to fight him. see a case rundown by TheLuncheonLawyer on YT

8

Anonymous #3 1d

my bad “*protected speech”, to be precise with your comment as well.

1

Anonymous #3 1d

Well to be completely precise, it has to be an insult, dog whistle, or offensive speech intended to, or that a reasonable person would believe is intended to, provoke a physical altercation.

5

Anonymous #1 1d

I’m glad we agree there. There’s been plenty of cases on this, but also some where the person wasn’t intending to have a physical altercation, just said those horrible things and left, but they still got hit with criminal charges due to the crowd’s concern (including kids) of an imminent altercation. so TLDR for me; it’s “protected speech” until you’re using it AT people instead of WITH people.

1

Anonymous #3 1d

I think that stems from the legal doctrine surrounding fighting words, IIRC it can be classified as assault if you say a "personal abusive epithet" and someone fears imminent bodily harm

2

Anonymous #2 1d

you just said the same thing as op with more words

6

Anonymous #5 1d

We’re saying remarkably different things

3

Anonymous #2 1d

i think OP is saying “freedom of speech doesn’t absolve you of the moral implications of what you say”. you’re saying “freedom of speech doesn’t absolve you of the social consequences and reactions of others who interpret the moral implications of what you say”. same shit more words

1

Anonymous #5 1d

No, they’re implying that supporters of free speech are only doing so to protect their own hate speech. I’m calling them out because that’s not true.

-2

Anonymous #2 1d

i don’t think that they mean every single 1st amendment advocate when they say “mfs who [insert specific action]”… they probably just mean people who do that specific action

2

Anonymous #1 1d

“Not someone’s political beliefs” but then their political beliefs are “I think women, LGBTQ+ people, and minorities are less than human” 🫩

18

Anonymous #2 22h

They said that “people who act like freedom of speech absolves them of any moral implications of the things they say”. That doesnt include all supporters of free speech, only people who misuse it to say hateful shit without consequences.

12

Anonymous #6 22h

Do you not think those are political beliefs or do you not see the harm in allowing the government to be the judge of who should be allowed to say what in politics

-1

Anonymous #1 21h

I think that if someone expresses any of the opinions i spoke of in my comment, they deserve to get their shit rocked

9

Anonymous #6 21h

Cool but our current government would probably argue it should only apply to MAGA people being called Nazis or some ridiculous nonsense. My point is that your anger at their beliefs doesn't outweigh the danger of giving that power to government, beat them at their politics or in life if you hate them so much.

-1

Anonymous #1 21h

I never said anything about giving the power to the government. In your initial comment, you complained about people “[acting] like they [had] some right to assault others over their speech”. I am saying here that I do. As soon as someone expresses that they are against human rights, they have forfeited any sort of decency they’re entitled to.

9

Anonymous #4 21h

It really isn’t hard to say that people deserve to live their lives in peace, that is literally all you have to say in order to be considered a decent person by reasonable people

6

Anonymous #6 21h

Well I see the right to bear arms as a human right, does that mean that anyone who opposes it deserves to be assaulted? Or do you get to pick and choose when that applies?

2

Anonymous #1 14h

Are you seriously comparing treating people equally to owning a gun? While guns can be an instrument to furthering human rights, they aren’t rights in themselves. Stop trying to play liberal’s advocate when it’s very clearly cut and dry

5

Anonymous #6 6h

Yeah lol we as a society get to decide what rights are

5