Do Words Equal Violence?

Bowser

Bowser

Namaste
Valued Senior Member
There seems to be an attack taking place on speech, and one of the more recent arguments in favor of limiting speech is that words are equal to violence. I've been called everything under the sun, yet it never quite felt the same as being punched in the face or kicked in the ribs.

Should we redefine certain speech as an act of violence? Can we really redefine violence to include unpopular speech?
 
The threat of violence, coupled with the proximity to make good on it, is the definition of assault.

Imagine a cop watching a thug threaten to throat punch Joe Schlub and then rip his heart out.
The cop can do nothing at all? Because no crime has been committed?
"I'm sorry, Mr. Schlub. I have to wait until he's shattered your trachea."

I realize that's not the scenario that you are imagining, but it is a valid scenario nonetheless.
 
Bowser said:
There seems to be an attack taking place on speech, and one of the more recent arguments in favor of limiting speech is that words are equal to violence. I've been called everything under the sun, yet it never quite felt the same as being punched in the face or kicked in the ribs.

Should we redefine certain speech as an act of violence? Can we really redefine violence to include unpopular speech?
Click to expand...

First of all kicking ribs , is an act cowardly , you don't hit the individual once he is down. Why we have to be physical to do body injury, verbally is more than enough.
 
Words can be used as weapons to injure and assault. They can used to slander and destroy. Hate speech is one example of this. Free speech doesn't apply to all forms of speech. Consult the FCC if you have any doubts.
 
DaveC426913 said:
The threat of violence, coupled with the proximity to make good on it, is the definition of assault.

Imagine a cop watching a thug threaten to throat punch Joe Schlub and then rip his heart out.
The cop can do nothing at all? Because no crime has been committed?
"I'm sorry, Mr. Schlub. I have to wait until he's shattered your trachea."

I realize that's not the scenario that you are imagining, but it is a valid scenario nonetheless.
Click to expand...

In some states, it's not assault if you call someone an SOB from across the street, but if you charge into an elevator with your target inside, shouting the same thing, you may expect to have your throat cut or something equally effective in mitigating the direct assault.

As far as outlawing "unpopular" speech, that's the day the Constitution dies. God help us.
 
Bowser said:
There seems to be an attack taking place on speech, and one of the more recent arguments in favor of limiting speech is that words are equal to violence. I've been called everything under the sun, yet it never quite felt the same as being punched in the face or kicked in the ribs. Should we redefine certain speech as an act of violence? Can we really redefine violence to include unpopular speech?
Click to expand...
Nope. Speech is protected - unless you use that speech to incite violence.

"That guy deserves to die!" - protected.
"That guy deserves to die, and I will pay anyone who kills him ten million dollars!" - not protected.

"The US is the Great Satan!" - protected.
"The US is the Great Satan, and I will tell you how blow up the World Trade Center." - not protected.
 
Dr_Toad said:
In some states, it's not assault if you call someone an SOB from across the street,
Click to expand...
Correct. Which is why proximity is a component. (i.e. being within range)

There's certainly a fuzzy line, but I imagine it factors in whether the target of the abuse has reasonable time and room to react.
 
Most places have that reasonable line pretty well defined. If you can avoid the threat, do so. If not, the shit hits the fan.

Which we all want to avoid...
 
Bowser said:
There seems to be an attack taking place on speech, and one of the more recent arguments in favor of limiting speech is that words are equal to violence. I've been called everything under the sun, yet it never quite felt the same as being punched in the face or kicked in the ribs.

Should we redefine certain speech as an act of violence? Can we really redefine violence to include unpopular speech?
Click to expand...
You mean . . . . like . . . . . all right wing speech is hateful and violent . . . . and should NOT be allowed by the 1st Amendment . . . and therefore be punishable?
 
Bowser said:
There seems to be an attack taking place on speech, and one of the more recent arguments in favor of limiting speech is that words are equal to violence.
Click to expand...
Whose argument is that?

The most effective attack on speech visible in the major media is the stifling influence of the rightwing think tanks and corporate management - the enforcement of "both sides" language, establishment of vocabulary codes, and domination of media time by rightwing framing. It took weeks of a concerted and public and elaborately defended effort by the entire non-wingnut establishment media to even be able to refer to Trump's most bizarre claims as "lies".

Words can lead to violence, and from powerful people they can be threats easily delivered and understood without being explicit. In governance, the key threat of violence is blatant lying. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4451.People_of_the_Lie
 
DaveC426913 said:
One does not have the right to not be stressed.
There needs to be a line crossed.
Click to expand...

The nature manifest as a thought in two terms, "I believe," that is omnipresent in you, empowering you. Non-transgressive non-violence creates happiness, giving you fire.
 
Bowser said:
There seems to be an attack taking place on speech, and one of the more recent arguments in favor of limiting speech is that words are equal to violence. I've been called everything under the sun, yet it never quite felt the same as being punched in the face or kicked in the ribs.

Should we redefine certain speech as an act of violence? Can we really redefine violence to include unpopular speech?
Click to expand...
It depends. From my point of view, attacks on free speech can only even theoretically come from the government. So where is the government attacking free speech?
 
Bowser said:
Should we redefine certain speech as an act of violence? Can we really redefine violence to include unpopular speech?
Click to expand...

When the bullies picked out people according to their skin color, the saying was that sticks and stones might break one's bones, but names will never hurt them.

When society stands up and calls out the bullies, suddenly words hurt.

Besides, we already know the answer: Yes, words do hurt. Still, they are a better weapon for societal dueling than sticks or stones, or blades or bullets or bombs. And, in the end, the bullies bawl because words just aren't their strong suit.

For instance, nobody is surprised, when all is said and done, that this subject arises, Bowser, by your hand.

Of course the advocate for bullies and bullying will bring the discussion.

You have nothing to say, Bowser. Your complaint is vapid and useless. No, really, look at it. There is precisely nothing to work with.

Get useful. Start making sense. Stop stirring shit for the sake of feeling excremental.

Find something to say or stop wasting our time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top