JS, I cannot reasonably address your question of comparing sexual assault to this political question. For personal reasons, I cannot even think about it without getting upset. Nothing to do with my respect for your opinions or positions, but that button pressed sets me off. Wouldn’t bring it up but don’t want you to think I’m ignoring your opinion.
There has to be something immediate.
Thanks. I accept that.
So a riot breaking out just after he said it would be on Trump but a violent protest the following week he’s scott free?
None of it is good, it is all tragic. How much responsibility does Trump bear? Just as I said, I dunno. But some.
What do you mean by “okay”? The fighting words doctrine is about freedom of speech.
Can someone quash your freedom of speech if you are essentially trying to provoke an immediate fight? Yes. The police could tell you to clear out, for example.
Can someone kill you/beat you/attack you if you are using words to provoke an immediate fight? Not as far as I know.
If you say “I’m gonna get out my gun and shoot you” then they might be able to make a case that they were afraid for their safety.
But if you say “I hope someone shoots you,” they don’t get to punch you in the face.
The concept of “fighting words” has been fleshed out in US jurisprudence. Xenophobic campaign speeches does not fit the criteria.
Remember, no paraphrasing. Exact quotes. Exactly whose parents did he say were rapists? (Let’s get that out of the way first, and then we can talk about “fighting words”.)
I made myself clearer, I hope, after you quoted me.
We are talking about responsibilty not whether violence is acceptable. If I walk around saying that certain people should go back to Africa, I must accept some responsibilty for any violence that might happen even if the people committing violence are the ones criminally responsible and I have the Constitution on my side.
Aw, c’mon, John, you know the personal is different from the political. A matter of scale if nothing else!
Does this hold in other cases too? If I walk around in revealing clothing, I must accept some responsibility for any violence that might happen even if the people committing violence are the ones criminally responsible and I have the Constitution on my side.?
Why do I have to google that for you?
I went out of my way to explicitly say that was not a limit. I said it was one example, an that there were others. I have no intention of making an exhaustive list.
Well it was a pretty silly example.
Anyway, I meant to add to my above post:
You said, in your rephrased post
I’m confused, honestly, about what you’re asking. You said “fighting words,” but I’m not sure how you mean that phrase. I think if I understood that, I would understand what you’re asking.
I think, and I could be wrong, that the underlying question is “When is it justifiable to counter speech with violence?” Is that a fair way of framing the question?
Some people are willing to excuse violence for political purposes but want to dance around a full admission.
Well, that’s a good question if you’re going to edit it to make it look worse than it actually was. Here is the full quote:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Now. Whose parents was he insulting again?
Some of them are good people, he assumes? Damned white of him!
Nah… He’d be a rotten President, but we wouldn’t see a crisis anywhere near the secession crisis of '61. Not even close.
We survived Reagan and Bush the lesser; we can survive this horse’s ass. The institutions of liberty are still strong. He could degrade them, but not eliminate them.
iiandyiiii is right: the violence only serves Trump’s needs. Peaceful opposition, within the limits of the law, is the best way to show our respect for the law. It’s self-contradictory to say, “This man is a threat to the rule of law” and then smash somebody up for being a Trumpa.
Should I and those like me go to a Sanders rally and physically attack his supporters? I have a legitimate fear of high levels of taxation. Why is that the left apologizes for violent consequences to the exercise of fundamental rights? We don’t see heavily armed right wingers physically attacking Clinton or Sanders supporters on public streets.
In addition to being immoral according to founding principles. It’s strategically unwise to cause fear in the types who would prefer a strong law and order response.
On a side note: why do you think it is that police get away with unjustifiable shootings and abuse? Why do you think prisons are as brutal and as rough as they are in this country? It’s because the majority fears the alternative. Seeing angry and violent swarms of people waving a foreign flag attacking supporters of a presidential candidate is going to make people fearful and angry. And it’s not like they don’t see the hypocrisy of the left as well.
Some of your arguments are hate speech apologism. Some downplay rape. They justify criminal activity. Some of your arguments, I assume, are good.
How does that feel? Lol.