Reality Check: What are the limits of cultural diversity?

[Commodore]

Freedom of speech was intended to maintain political discourse, not encourage the spouting of nonsense. It restrains the government from silencing its critics, but was enacted in a time where if you slandered me to my face and I beat you to death there was a very good probability that a jury would say "okay, he had that coming," if law enforcement even bothered to ask a jury about it. Our modern world of "oh my, we can't be violent" has allowed free speech to expand into areas in which it was never intended to apply.

Finally, someone else gets it. Freedom of speech just means the government can't suppress your ideas, but a private citizen or corporation should most certainly be allowed to do so (I say that in all seriousness by the way).

 

[Perfection]

Finally, someone else gets it. Freedom of speech just means the government can't suppress your ideas, but a private citizen or corporation should most certainly be allowed to do so (I say that in all seriousness by the way).

I firmly disagree. You have an obligation to control your anger and not be violent, even if provoked.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I firmly disagree. You have an obligation to control your anger and not be violent, even if provoked.

Why? If someone wants to provoke me, why should I stymie their intentions? Why should anyone else care one way or the other? I don't get angry about it, but if someone demonstrates that they want to get socked in the head I see no reason for being uncooperative.

 

[Perfection]

Saying provocative things in itself does not indicate consent to violence nor is violence an appropriate response. That said the provocateur may invite numerous opportunities where violence is an apropriate response: for instance, refusal to leave when disinvited from private premises or making threats.

 

[Commodore]

I firmly disagree. You have an obligation to control your anger and not be violent, even if provoked.

I'll agree that violence isn't always the appropriate response (sometimes you just gotta clock someone in the jaw to get them to shut up though), but there are other means of suppression. For example, if an employee expresses a view the company doesn't agree with, the company should be free to terminate that employee. They should also be free to give you a bad reference (as long as everything they say about you is true) to other employers in their industry to essentially 'blacklist' you from that industry. I, personally, would find such practices abhorrent and unethical, but since a private organization is not the government, then they are under no obligation to respect your Constitutional rights.

 

[Perfection]

That's not really suppression, though. Employers aren't obligated to hire you or keep you employed.

Note that the government also can fire its own employees based on distateful speech.

That's because employment isn't a right.

But companies and private citizens do not have the right in general to stop you from speaking yoir mind.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Saying provocative things in itself does not indicate consent to violence nor is violence an appropriate response.

Repeating them after being informed of the violent consequences does, and why is violence not then an appropriate response?

 

[Perfection]

Repeating them after being informed of the violent consequences does, and why is violence not then an appropriate response?

If you inform someone that you will shoot them if they don't hand over their wallet and they don't hand over their wallet do you have the right to shoot them? Typically not! Why not? Because your threat of violence is unlawful. Not complying with an unlawful threat does not indicate consent.

Threatening violence should only be allowed under certain circumstances. A statement that is provocative is insufficient to justify threatening someone.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you inform someone that you will shoot them if they don't hand over their wallet and they don't hand over their wallet do you have the right to shoot them? Typically not! Why not? Because your threat of violence is unlawful. Not complying with an unlawful threat does not indicate consent.

Threatening violence should only be allowed under certain circumstances. A statement that is provocative is insufficient to justify threatening someone.

There is a huge difference between unlawful and not allowed.

The system of laws attaches consequences to actions, it doesn't prevent those actions. Person A says something blatantly offensive. Person B informs person A that saying such an offensive thing can have violent consequences.

Person B may be ignoring the consequences associated with making threats, or they may believe that they are capable of mitigating those consequences (this is most likely, since there is very little chance of any conviction at this point), or they may believe that they will derive a net benefit even if they do suffer the consequences.

Person A is now free to choose whether they want to suffer the immediate known consequences of their actions. Let's say they repeat their offensive behavior.

Person B now beats the snot out of person A. Again, they may be ignoring the consequences associated with beating the snot out of someone, or they may believe they can mitigate those consequences, or they may believe they will derive a net benefit despite the consequences.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What you are doing here is making a good argument for always carrying a concealed weapon and living in states where you can "stand your ground" against those who wish to physically harm you, at least if you live in a country like the US instead of most the rest of the so-called advanced world.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What you are doing here is making a good argument for always carrying a concealed weapon and living in states where you can "stand your ground" against those who wish to physically harm you, at least if you live in a country like the US instead of most the rest of the so-called advanced world.

Restate result...

Person B then takes person A's gun away and blows their fool head off. Since person A introduced the deadly weapon, person B has no problem whatsoever demonstrating that it was indeed necessary for them to "stand their ground" and suffers no consequences at all.

That works for me.

 

[Perfection]

There is a huge difference between unlawful and not allowed.

The system of laws attaches consequences to actions, it doesn't prevent those actions. Person A says something blatantly offensive. Person B informs person A that saying such an offensive thing can have violent consequences.

Person B may be ignoring the consequences associated with making threats, or they may believe that they are capable of mitigating those consequences (this is most likely, since there is very little chance of any conviction at this point), or they may believe that they will derive a net benefit even if they do suffer the consequences.

Person A is now free to choose whether they want to suffer the immediate known consequences of their actions. Let's say they repeat their offensive behavior.

Person B now beats the snot out of person A. Again, they may be ignoring the consequences associated with beating the snot out of someone, or they may believe they can mitigate those consequences, or they may believe they will derive a net benefit despite the consequences.

Person B may very well make said threat to A but I would argue said threat is an illegal act as is the following through with it. It should not be legal to threaten people simply because they say offensive things. It may be understandable which may reduce culpability, but it should not eliminate it.

Consider if it occurs at the following settings: Person As house or person Bs house.

If it happens at Person As house, person B ought to leave if he desires not to hear As remarks. He has no standing to threaten A simply because A made such remarks.

If it happens at person Bs house. He has the right to withdraw As invitation. Only if A refuses to leave does B have the right to threaten violence.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Person B may very well make said threat to A but I would argue said threat is an illegal act as is the following through with it. It should not be legal to threaten people simply because they say offensive things. It may be understandable which may reduce culpability, but it should not eliminate it.

Consider if it occurs at the following settings: Person As house or person Bs house.

If it happens at Person As house, person B ought to leave if he desires not to hear As remarks. He has no standing to threaten A simply because A made such remarks.

If it happens at person Bs house. He has the right to withdraw As invitation. Only if A refuses to leave does B have the right to threaten violence.

I agree completely. It should be noted that those are two special cases that are going to account for a very small sliver of the spectrum of situations.

 

[Commodore]

That's not really suppression, though. Employers aren't obligated to hire you or keep you employed.

Note that the government also can fire its own employees based on distateful speech.

That's because employment isn't a right.

But companies and private citizens do not have the right in general to stop you from speaking yoir mind.

It could be considered suppression in the sense that people may not express their true beliefs or publicly espouse the beliefs their employer wants them to out of fear of losing their employment and, thus, their ability to survive in society.