Every civilized country on earth has figured out that there needs to be acceptable limits to free speech and that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of saying something.
freedom from the consequences of saying something.
Freedom of speech in the US protects you from consequences from the government, not anyone or anything else. You can still get fired, or at, for your free speech.
Op implied that free speech does not protect you from being murdered, which is technically true, but it’s nonsensical unless he believes murder to be an acceptable response to free speech. It might happen, and in fact it did happen, but it’s not ok so why even bring it up? Unless you think it’s ok, in which case you are an absolute moron.
Nowhere( in response to your post ) did anyone say murder was an acceptable response, just that if you murder someone , nobody is charging you with a violation of free speech because that would be nonsensical.
And the only reason they had to say that much is because your argument was incorrect.
If you want to argue proportional response, have at it, but you didn’t, you argued :
Every civilized country on earth has figured out that there needs to be acceptable limits to free speech and that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of saying something.
Freedom of speech in the US protects you from consequences from the government, not anyone or anything else. You can still get fired, or at, for your free speech.
No because that would be murder.
Reread that comment and not seeing how anything in it can be considered murder
The fired at part
Murder isn’t a violation of the US definition of free speech, unless the government does the murdering.
Still a crime, but not a constitutional free speech violation.
Op implied that free speech does not protect you from being murdered, which is technically true, but it’s nonsensical unless he believes murder to be an acceptable response to free speech. It might happen, and in fact it did happen, but it’s not ok so why even bring it up? Unless you think it’s ok, in which case you are an absolute moron.
Nowhere( in response to your post ) did anyone say murder was an acceptable response, just that if you murder someone , nobody is charging you with a violation of free speech because that would be nonsensical.
And the only reason they had to say that much is because your argument was incorrect.
If you want to argue proportional response, have at it, but you didn’t, you argued :
Exactly.
I’ve seen it summed it up thusly: “If your speech incites violence, don’t be surprised when people use violence in response.”
So I guess fights at professional sports games are justified violence, since someone probably incited it by insulting an opposing player.
You’re confusing incitement and provocation.
Incitement involves actively encouraging action.
“you’re bad at hockey and your mother is large” might be provocation
“It is time for us to take up arms against the enemy” is incitement
I think a lot of people are confused about what constitutes incitement.