Should one have to worry about violence for insults?

More to the point, though unsaid by the 1A, freedom of speech has an unwritten, but obvious secondary clause; We have the right to be offended by another's commentary, but we do not have the right to censure or censor anyone due to their chosen commentary, with the exception of stopping someone from saying anything that might be eminently putting another in physical danger, like stopping someone yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. The yeller can, in fact, be legally penalized for endangerment of others.

If you had a sister with hard right politics and I call your sister "low IQ", then you would not assault me over it. Insulting terms (like low IQ, the N word, etc) do NOT justify a violent response.

Comparing the insult “low IQ” to the N word. This is low Remy, even for you.

We have the right to be offended by another's commentary, but we do not have the right to censure or censor anyone due to their chosen commentary

This is totally made up. The 1A protects people government censorship, not from the consequences of their speech. Your position isn’t just wrong, it’s self contradictory. Censoring and censuring speech are both forms of speech themselves, so not having the right to that is having your right to speech taken away.

All this argument is is “I want the right to say whatever I want, and no one has the right to do anything about it” dressed up as legal analysis.

The 1A protects people government censorship, not from the consequences of their speech.

Well it depends what the consequences are. Even in North Korea it could be said that they have free speech, just not freedom from consequences.

The 1A protects people government censorship, not from the consequences of their speech

This is probably the dumbest argument I ever read. You cannot have free speech if someone can beat you up or kill you for it. So I am afraid some consequences must be protected from, for free speech to exist at all.

People today are very sensitive. You can literally hurt them with words. Free speech dies very quickly in country full of word-sensitive apes.

"Oh he said a mean word to me, so instead of acting like I don't care, I will beat him up because I am actually an ape."

Well it depends what the consequences are. Even in North Korea it could be said that they have free speech, just not freedom from consequences

North Korea has guaranteed free speech in its constitution.

But in reality, guaranteed consequences for anyone talking what government doesn't approve.

So yeah, free speech with very bad consequences is no different from no free speech at all.

Insulting terms (like low IQ, the N word, etc) do NOT justify a violent response. You can walk away, but you do NOT get to be violent.

People can say hateful things and other people can respond to that violently. Everything is optional except for consequences.

Well it depends what the consequences are.

What consequences could be legitimately deemed a first amendment violation not imposed by the government?

This is probably the dumbest argument I ever read. You cannot have free speech if someone can beat you up or kill you for it.

“Freedom of speech” is a colloquial reference to the first amendment of the US constitution, not some vague philosophical notion of whether you are privileged enough to speak your mind.

The first amendment of the US constitution specifically bars Congress from creating any law abridging your right to speak. Nothing about that in any way addresses some rando on the street beating you up for speaking your mind. We have laws that cover such behavior, it’s called assault.

The first amendment of the US constitution specifically bars Congress from creating any law abridging your right to speak. Nohing about that in any way addresses some rando on the street beating you up for speaking your mind.

Actually, you are just wrong again. Government has legal duty to protect from assault, and thanks to first amendment, cant use my speech as excuse to create exception to legalize assault in that case.

But I am sure legal consistency is not the term you are familiar with.

This claim I decide it is hateful. Would you respect me to knock your front teeth out for saying it?

these people are literally kids. Mentally.

But lets change gender. Imagine if woman says something which offends me emotionally. Should I beat her up?

What consequences could be legitimately deemed a first amendment violation not imposed by the government?

If someone uses violence against you, that would be a consequence not imposed by the govt. The violence itself isn't a 1st amendment violation to my knowledge, but if the govt failed to prosecute them specifically because of your speech, then that would be viewpoint discrimination, which is unconstitutional.

But lets change gender. Imagine if woman says something which offends me emotionally. Should I beat her up?

No.

Even when she chooses the bear over you?

This claim I decide it is hateful. Would you respect me to knock your front teeth out for saying it?

You're welcome to try, but as I was saying, everything is optional except for the consequences.

Lets NOT legalize assault because the assaulter is angry. All assaulters are angry when they assault.

Who is arguing for legalizing assault?

I am pointing out that actions have potential consequences. If you use a racial slur against someone (which isnt necessarily legal) there are consequences. The best way to avoid those potential consequences is to choose a less ignorant path.

Government has legal duty to protect from assault

That’s why we have laws against assault genius.

thanks to first amendment, cant use my speech as excuse to create exception to legalize assault in that case.

This is a pure fantasy reading of what’s actually at issue in the chud case.

The issue there is whether someone can use self defense as a legal defense when they’re the one who provoked the attack against them. And a deeper question is whether words alone can qualify as provocation in this context.

These are perfectly legitimate questions, nothing about this has anything to do with “legalizing assault” because they didn’t like his speech.

And not for nothing, but referring to racial slurs as “speech” is already dumb enough. The whole reason we protect speech in the first place is to ensure people remain free to speak out against their political leaders, not because we value the right of people to freely insult their fellow citizens. So pretending like you’re protecting some kind of virtuous principal here is laughable.

The violence itself isn't a 1st amendment violation to my knowledge, but if the govt failed to prosecute them specifically because of your speech, then that would be viewpoint discrimination, which is unconstitutional.

What you’re describing is basically the government imposing punishment for speech by a proxy. Doesn’t really conflict with what I’m saying, I never argued that someone’s speech makes it ok to attack them, only that it falls outside of the scope of what “free speech” is about. But when someone’s speech becomes the deciding factor in what can happen to them and it’s the government at the helm of that decision, doesn’t matter what mechanism they use, that is principally a first amendment violation.

Okay, maybe we are saying the same thing then. My point is just that to some extent, freedom of speech is freedom from certain consequences pertaining to the law (i.e. you have the freedom to say unpopular things without being punched in the face, enforced by the government arresting the puncher for assault). When fauxlaw said we don't have the right to censor people, I thought he might be referring to using force to silence someone in a public space, not simply refusing to allow them on a private platform. Cause Remy's initial post was about violence.

And a deeper question is whether words alone can qualify as provocation in this context.

thats not really any deep question any rational person even asks. If you are brainless ape, then words can provoke you to act violently. And government then stops you because you are doing assault. And no, assault cannot be legally justified by saying "oh he said a mean word to me so I beat him up".

You miss this point: "we do not have the right to censure or censor anyone due to their chosen commentary"

There are always consequences to our claim of rights, where rights may not in fact be available. Therefore, we do not have the "right" [which is available to all], but a misguided privilege "...to censure or censor anyone due to their chosen commentary." Privileges are of limited access. One of the limitations is that by whatever claim we make about someone else is subject to truth. One may say that another is "low I.Q.," but they had better be prepared to prove it in court should that other person sue for slander or libel. They have that right, my friend.

You miss this point: "we do not have the right to censure or censor anyone due to their chosen commentary"

I don’t see how I was missing it, I responded directly to it.

To say we don’t have a right to censor or censure anyone for their commentary is self defeating. It’s trying to uphold one person’s right to free speech by taking away the free speech rights of others to respond. This is why “free speech” is only meaningful as a concept if it is invoked as a check against the government.

There are always consequences to our claim of rights, where rights may not in fact be available. Therefore, we do not have the "right" [which is available to all], but a misguided privilege "...to censure or censor anyone due to their chosen commentary." Privileges are of limited access. One of the limitations is that by whatever claim we make about someone else is subject to truth. One may say that another is "low I.Q.," but they had better be prepared to prove it in court should that other person sue for slander or libel. They have that right, my friend.

Honestly, no idea what you’re talking about here.

Honestly, no idea what you’re talking about here.

Typical response from Dbl.