If you ask someone who won the 2020 election and they say Trump, is it okay to punch them? Hmmm... (Of course not. But it is okay to mock them relentlessly.)
Denial of facts has become 'political art' as opposed to say, 'political compromise' so as to govern for the common good! The more I read, the more I am convinced that ignorance has replaced intelligence!
I think it's not ok to punch. Is it ok to give a racist, nazi a microphone and podium, or a social media virtual podium? I say no. Hate speech and the first ammendment should also guarantee a person a public forum. Let them say what they want, but they shouldn't have the right to spread hate and harmful words. Same goes for public servants who spread lies, intentionally mislead the public for person gain. Remove their ability to speak to the public. Speech, as Trump applied it, literally was weaponized (Jan 6). It led to fleecing the public for money, insurrection, attacks, phyical harm, threatened murder, and murder. I think freedom of speech needs thougher boundaries when it's used in a public forum, especially by public servants. The public deserves the truth when it is the public that chooses decision-makers that have great impact on the country and entire world. It's too important.
Where it gets tricky -- where it always gets tricky -- is what constitutes hate speech. I know what I'd like to see stopped but I'm buffaloed as to how to best do that. Or how to best counter that effectively.
I appreciate that struggle. I do think that a public appearance, on stage or on camera, is not a right, but must be earned. Now anyone can put themselves online and say anything, so that is another thing. However, there should be a higher bar for public servants and rapid consequences for spreading misinformation to the public, demonizing whole groups of people for who they are (vs say violent actions they take), and for instigating or encouraging violent acts. Part of their job as public servants is to inform the public. We should be able to depend on accuracy.
I know this topic brings up a big gray area. It's like the gun issue. We know harm is being done and we do nothing to stop it because we can't agree on where to draw the lines related to Amendments.
Trickier still if Trump and the MAGA cult get complete control. He’s promoted laws under the guise of anti-defamation that could limit or suppress speech. Much like you can go to prison in Russia just for saying that the invasion of Ukraine is just that, an invasion, I can see him trying to pass a law saying that you could be sued for calling his lie a lie. It probably wouldn’t be held up in court but the lawyer will still send you a bill. That can be enough to stifle speech. As much as I hate to listen to it, l think we need to be careful when judging whether speech crosses the line into incitement or some other illegality, to decide whether it’s simply ugly or it’s dangerous. One upside (I guess) is that free speech has resulted in a lot of these hateful monsters to self-identify when we might not have known of them otherwise. That’s been the case with a lot of the January 6 insurrectionists. Their speech prior may not have been strictly illegal but it served as evidence of their intent to act illegally. Metaphorically speaking, though neither is desirable, I guess I’d pick an open wound over a festering one.
I agree that freedom of speech boundaries are complicated to determine for sure. Trump brought things to a new level by using a combination of his power to influence and tweets to encourage action by his supporters. People felt justified to attack and protected from consequences for their actions with the President on their side. Trump knew exactly what he was doing and he was delighted by the actions of his people. He was sure he could get people to do whatever he wanted. Somehow, we need to draw lines on what can be said to the public by public servants to protect us from that happening again. There should have been consequences for him saying things to his supporter at his rally like "knock the crap out of them" about hecklers in the crowd. There is extra responsibility when power is matched with speech. (political, religious, law enforcement leaders etc) Speech combined with power/authority can incite crowd behavior and create a real danger, as we saw on Jan 6th. It's complicated for sure. I do think there needs something better to put a plug on politician calls for violent acts.
We may getting close to where DOJ has to act, not just on January 6. Trump collected a quarter billion for legal defense since Election Day and there’s no accounting for it being spent that way. Now personally, Trump ripping off his followers doesn’t bother me too much but while they don’t seem to care about violence, I’m sure they do about their money. It will be interesting to see the reaction to Judge Luttig’s testimony today.
In terms of speech, I think there’s a kind of truth in the lies and the hate speech. The truth that it exists. There’s no comfort in that and there shouldn’t be. That it’s out in the open makes it harder to deny and we (not you) Americans do too much of that already, anti-CRT laws being an example. People talk about the country reaching a tipping point, about all this being existential. If things are going to get better, in part it will be because enough of us confront the ugliness. I don’t know if we’re there yet. Some days it seems like the future of democracy doesn’t compete as a major issue for people. Hopefully that’s going to change.
And if they're running for reelection, do please ask them if they have ever asked for a preemptive pardon.
Excellent.
If you ask someone who won the 2020 election and they say Trump, is it okay to punch them? Hmmm... (Of course not. But it is okay to mock them relentlessly.)
I don’t know if its okay to mock them , but I do
Let's take a vote. All in favor? Three ayes. The ayes have it.
Denial of facts has become 'political art' as opposed to say, 'political compromise' so as to govern for the common good! The more I read, the more I am convinced that ignorance has replaced intelligence!
It certainly smells that way, doesn’t it?
I think it's not ok to punch. Is it ok to give a racist, nazi a microphone and podium, or a social media virtual podium? I say no. Hate speech and the first ammendment should also guarantee a person a public forum. Let them say what they want, but they shouldn't have the right to spread hate and harmful words. Same goes for public servants who spread lies, intentionally mislead the public for person gain. Remove their ability to speak to the public. Speech, as Trump applied it, literally was weaponized (Jan 6). It led to fleecing the public for money, insurrection, attacks, phyical harm, threatened murder, and murder. I think freedom of speech needs thougher boundaries when it's used in a public forum, especially by public servants. The public deserves the truth when it is the public that chooses decision-makers that have great impact on the country and entire world. It's too important.
I should have proofread before hitting enter. Second sentence should be:
Hate speech and the first ammendment should NOT also guarantee a person a public forum.
Where it gets tricky -- where it always gets tricky -- is what constitutes hate speech. I know what I'd like to see stopped but I'm buffaloed as to how to best do that. Or how to best counter that effectively.
I appreciate that struggle. I do think that a public appearance, on stage or on camera, is not a right, but must be earned. Now anyone can put themselves online and say anything, so that is another thing. However, there should be a higher bar for public servants and rapid consequences for spreading misinformation to the public, demonizing whole groups of people for who they are (vs say violent actions they take), and for instigating or encouraging violent acts. Part of their job as public servants is to inform the public. We should be able to depend on accuracy.
I know this topic brings up a big gray area. It's like the gun issue. We know harm is being done and we do nothing to stop it because we can't agree on where to draw the lines related to Amendments.
Precisely. I wouldn't cut people off from talking, but I WOULD educate the populace more, which is a long row to hoe.
I want the ability to prevent public servants from knowingly lying to the public without consequence.
It's the without consequence part that pisses me off. They can lie. But they need to be held accountable for that lie.
Trickier still if Trump and the MAGA cult get complete control. He’s promoted laws under the guise of anti-defamation that could limit or suppress speech. Much like you can go to prison in Russia just for saying that the invasion of Ukraine is just that, an invasion, I can see him trying to pass a law saying that you could be sued for calling his lie a lie. It probably wouldn’t be held up in court but the lawyer will still send you a bill. That can be enough to stifle speech. As much as I hate to listen to it, l think we need to be careful when judging whether speech crosses the line into incitement or some other illegality, to decide whether it’s simply ugly or it’s dangerous. One upside (I guess) is that free speech has resulted in a lot of these hateful monsters to self-identify when we might not have known of them otherwise. That’s been the case with a lot of the January 6 insurrectionists. Their speech prior may not have been strictly illegal but it served as evidence of their intent to act illegally. Metaphorically speaking, though neither is desirable, I guess I’d pick an open wound over a festering one.
I agree that freedom of speech boundaries are complicated to determine for sure. Trump brought things to a new level by using a combination of his power to influence and tweets to encourage action by his supporters. People felt justified to attack and protected from consequences for their actions with the President on their side. Trump knew exactly what he was doing and he was delighted by the actions of his people. He was sure he could get people to do whatever he wanted. Somehow, we need to draw lines on what can be said to the public by public servants to protect us from that happening again. There should have been consequences for him saying things to his supporter at his rally like "knock the crap out of them" about hecklers in the crowd. There is extra responsibility when power is matched with speech. (political, religious, law enforcement leaders etc) Speech combined with power/authority can incite crowd behavior and create a real danger, as we saw on Jan 6th. It's complicated for sure. I do think there needs something better to put a plug on politician calls for violent acts.
We may getting close to where DOJ has to act, not just on January 6. Trump collected a quarter billion for legal defense since Election Day and there’s no accounting for it being spent that way. Now personally, Trump ripping off his followers doesn’t bother me too much but while they don’t seem to care about violence, I’m sure they do about their money. It will be interesting to see the reaction to Judge Luttig’s testimony today.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/16/politics/luttig-statement-trump-plan-january-6-committee/index.html
In terms of speech, I think there’s a kind of truth in the lies and the hate speech. The truth that it exists. There’s no comfort in that and there shouldn’t be. That it’s out in the open makes it harder to deny and we (not you) Americans do too much of that already, anti-CRT laws being an example. People talk about the country reaching a tipping point, about all this being existential. If things are going to get better, in part it will be because enough of us confront the ugliness. I don’t know if we’re there yet. Some days it seems like the future of democracy doesn’t compete as a major issue for people. Hopefully that’s going to change.
Oh, I hope the DOJ gets moving soon! All this evidence and no action is frustrating as @#$!