SubJeff on 18/2/2021 at 22:41
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Is not speaking ill of the dead a courtesy, or a right?
I'm not talking about speaking ill of the dead. There's no rules on that in these cases. Speaking ill of him is fine; he hasn't reversed everything he's done in death.
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
pissing on his grave would be an expression of free speech too
No, that's an action and likely to get you arrested as it's probably a crime.
nemyax on 19/2/2021 at 09:44
Quote Posted by SubJeff
You can say what you want, even about your president, and nothing will happen to you.
Try saying what you want about BLM.
SubJeff on 19/2/2021 at 09:56
You can. It's not illegal to criticise them is it?
Nameless Voice on 19/2/2021 at 14:15
I'm curious, what about a dictator who doesn't personally kill anyone with his own hands?
After all, ordering someone else's death is just words. You surely can't blame them for what their enforcers choose to do based on those words.
Isn't that the ultimate freedom of speech without consequence that people keep extolling?
If any speech should be free and no one should ever be held responsible for the results of their words, then by following that logic to the extreme, it it okay to order someone else's death, or to bully someone into committing suicide, or to trick someone into doing something that they don't know is dangerous and getting killed as a result.
Nicker on 19/2/2021 at 14:18
I think the problem here is a category error. We should not celebrate the deaths of our fellow humans but sociopaths are a parasitic sub-species which use the human form to hunt us for their own profit and entertainment. Their demise is cause for celebration, not self-flagellation.
And when I say celebrate, I don't mean wasting resources on a parade or a dance of joy, I mean the sigh of satisfaction when a bout of constipation is relieved by a fiber enhanced dump.
SubJeff on 19/2/2021 at 15:22
Nameless, are you confusing expressing an opinion with giving an order within a chain of command?
heywood on 19/2/2021 at 16:39
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
I'm curious, what about a dictator who doesn't personally kill anyone with his own hands?
After all, ordering someone else's death is just words. You surely can't blame them for what their enforcers choose to do based on those words.
Isn't that the ultimate freedom of speech without consequence that people keep extolling?
If any speech should be free and no one should ever be held responsible for the results of their words, then by following that logic to the extreme, it it okay to order someone else's death, or to bully someone into committing suicide, or to trick someone into doing something that they don't know is dangerous and getting killed as a result.
Isn't the answer obvious? It's about power & control. A dictator has the power to order someone to kill on their behalf.
Did Limbaugh have the power to order someone to kill on his behalf? No. Did Limbaugh try to get anyone to kill on his behalf? No. Limbaugh had the power & influence to spread bigotry and he often used it for that purpose. But spreading bigotry is not actually a crime, so I don't think your analogy is all that relevant.
My general take:
I don't think Rush's death changes anything on the American conservative landscape because his influence has been declining for a long time. He lost a lot of his audience during his opioid addiction years when we was too incapacitated to host the show properly. Some listeners came back to him in 2008, but by then he had a lot of competition from other forms of conservative media. His influence during the Obama years was nowhere near what it was during the Clinton years, which was the peak of his career. Also, he was too much of a traditional conservative for today's Republican party, too much for the activist elements of it anyway. He wasn't at the front anymore after the wave of right populism swept over the party.
Nameless Voice on 19/2/2021 at 17:08
No, the answer isn't obvious.
So, ordering someone else to commit a murder is a case where free speech doesn't apply.
What if the person just suggests the action? "I would like it if Johnny weren't around to bother me", knowing that their henchmen will interpret that as a request to kill Johnny. Is that protected by freedom of speech?
Again, what if you bully someone into committing suicide? You didn't order their death, but your words caused it.
What if you trick someone into doing something dangerous, because you tell them it's a good idea and they trust you, and it leads to their death? You didn't kill them, but you used your words to cause their death.
What if you tell a group of your armed supporters that you want them to storm a building, resulting in many deaths? You told them to do it, even if you didn't explicitly tell them to kill people.
My point still stands: freedom of speech is a right, but it is not and should never be the only right, that is held up on a pedestal above all others.
I hate this notion that one person's right to speech is more important than another person's right to not be killed, injured, or harassed. Anyone who thinks that has some seriously messed-up priorities.
SubJeff on 19/2/2021 at 17:53
There are laws against most of those examples though.
Tocky on 19/2/2021 at 18:03
Quote Posted by nemyax
Try saying what you want about BLM.
My heart bleeds that you can't say anything you want without someone else being able to respond to you using that same right. The horror.