Man calling for “peaceful ethnic cleansing” gets attacked

[Zelk]

is it really free speech when people advocate "ethic cleansing"?

free speech doesn't protect you from being punched in the face lmao

[Derah]

free speech doesn't protect you from being punched in the face lmao

If you're punched in the face because of what you say, then the speech is not really free. There's a cost associated with expressing what you want.

Again, I'm not defending the racist neo-nazi asshole. His message is horrible, and he's scum of the earth, but if he hasn't actually hurt anyone, then attacking him EXCLUSIVELY because he was talking shit is wrong.

His message is horrible, but its his democratic right to spread it. Punching him in the face exclusively because you don't like what he's SAYING, goes against everything that democracy stands for.

Now, if he's actually killed, or hurt other people, in order to enforce his racist views, that's another thing entirely.

[The Stormbringer]

I still have no idea how ethnic cleansing could ever be "peaceful". What if people don't want to be 'cleansed'? What if they fight back? How are you gonna keep it 'peaceful' then? Not only is he racist, but he's a moron too.

[Zelk]

If you're punched in the face because of what you say, then the speech is not really free. There's a cost associated with expressing what you want.

Again, I'm not defending the racist neo-nazi asshole. His message is horrible, and he's scum of the earth, but if he hasn't actually hurt anyone, then attacking him EXCLUSIVELY because he was talking shit is wrong.

His message is horrible, but its his democratic right to spread it. Punching him in the face exclusively because you don't like what he's SAYING, goes against everything that democracy stands for.

Now, if he's actually killed, or hurt other people, in order to enforce his racist views, that's another thing entirely.

free speech is not letting anyone run their mouth about whatever they want. It's stopping the government from silencing you. An alt-right weirdo can speak his crap and I can punch him and that's not violating his free speech.

[JohnBrown1917]

Look, I agree with you, that punching actual nazis in the face is a good deed. But this asshole hasn't murdered anyone yet. He's just an asshole saying that he WANTS to murder people.

And while that's a horrible message to spread, its his democratic right to spread it.

If you wanna fight his rhetoric, combat it with rhetoric of your own. Fight fire (words) with fire (words). You don't fight fire (words) with nuclear fire (Physical attacks).

So long as the asshole limits his racism to verbal gibberish, assaulting him is wrong, and goes against everything that democracy stands for.

You're confusing democracy with freedom of speech.
But im thankfull we here have laws against spreading such hatefull messages.

[Derah]

It's stopping the government from silencing you.

Nope. Free speech is stopping ANYONE from silencing you. Be them government, or civilians. In a free society, you're free to express your views without fear of retribution. Be it from official governmental forces, or unofficial hostile civilians.

It doesn't matter if your views are horrible, or despicable, in a free society, you're free to express them. Granted, this has limits too. I can't exactly go to your house and insult you to your face, that's your property, and in your property, you decide what's spoken in there or not.

But if I'm in a public highway hurling insults about you and your mother, its my democratic right to do it. And you're not entitled to punch me in the face for it.

You ARE entitled to insult me back of course. Like I said, fight fire with fire. Not fire, with nuclear fire. If I punch you in the face, THEN you are entitled to punch me back.

[JohnBrown1917]

free speech is not letting anyone run their mouth about whatever they want. It's stopping the government from silencing you. An alt-right weirdo can speak his crap and I can punch him and that's not violating his free speech.

I'd rather just outlaw the speech, makes things easier.

[Derah]

I'd rather just outlaw the speech, makes things easier.

Once you've done that, where do you draw the line? Who decides what's appropriate or inappropriate to talk about? Once you've silenced all the neo-nazis, will you go after the anti-communists? once you've silenced them, will you then move to silence anyone whose views oppose your own? Before long, anyone who says anything that irritates you should be silenced, by force if needed.

And then voila, we're in a fascist state.

[Derah]

Then why is it fine for private companies to fire people who post racist garbage on social media?

Their right to not employ you. Terminating someone's employment =/= physically assaulting someone, or killing them.

It would be wrong if that same private company actually physically hurts you for what you've said.

If you say something I disagree with, its my right to refuse to associate myself with you. If that means firing your ass from my business, then so be it. It still wont entitle me to physically hurt you in any way for what you've said.

[GrieverXIII]

Nope. Free speech is stopping ANYONE from silencing you.

Bzzt, wrong. It only applies to the State. You simply can't be jailed or judged by court for your opinion but people are free to fire you or kick your ass out of their property for it though.

What happened there had nothing to do with free speech anyway. The guy is spreading hate speeches around, of course he's going to be hated for it. Should consider himself lucky it was just a punch. People were murdered for much less, in some cases, they were literally for fighting against what he preaches (Martin Luther King).

[Derah]

Bzzt, wrong. It only applies to the State. You simply can't be jailed or judged by court for your opinion but people are free to fire you or kick your ass out of their property for it though.

Highlighted the important part.

Yes, you can fire an asshole who is talking shit, and yes, you can also expel them physically from your property if they're talking shit.

If someone is talking shit in public property however, its a whole different game, and its still wrong to assault them for it.

I find it hypocritical that you would celebrate what happened to this asshole, but then talk about Martin Luther King. Mr King was also killed for expressing his views and just as it was wrong what was done to him, it was wrong what was done to the asshole who got punched.

Edit: Just to clarify once more, I am NOT defending the asshole, in fact, its a little telling that I refuse to refer to him by name, instead calling him for what he is, an asshole, because his views are abhorrent, and despicable, and completely indefensible. But while he is a despicable person, spreading a despicable message, I still find the act of punching someone who was only TALKING to be morally wrong. And its a dangerous line to cross.

What they were talking about is irrelevant. A physical assault against someone who was just speaking can't be called a good deed.

[GrieverXIII]

Highlighted the important part.

Yes, you can fire an asshole who is talking shit, and yes, you can also expel them physically from your property if they're talking shit.

If someone is talking shit in public property however, its a whole different game, and its still wrong to assault them for it.

I find it hypocritical that you would celebrate what happened to this asshole, but then talk about Martin Luther King. Mr King was also killed for expressing his views and just as it was wrong what was done to him, it was wrong what was done to the asshole who got punched.

Edit: Just to clarify once more, I am NOT defending the asshole, in fact, its a little telling that I refuse to refer to him by name, instead calling him for what he is, an asshole, because his views are abhorrent, and despicable, and completely indefensible. But while he is a despicable person, spreading a despicable message, I still find the act of punching someone who was only TALKING to be morally wrong. And its a dangerous line to cross.

What they were talking about is irrelevant. A physical assault against someone who was just speaking can't be called a good deed.

I'm hardly celebrating it. I'm just saying that if you're a rich white boy going out of his way to piss off people, employ more bodyguards or be ready for that kind of stuff to happen.

[Derah]

employ more bodyguards or be ready for that kind of stuff to happen.

This shouldn't be the case though. We SHOULD be better than that. To attack someone who's saying something we don't want to hear. At least when its on public property.

What happened here was wrong. People should not be hit or killed for the simple act of SPEAKING.

Case in point: I loathe Anita Sarkeesian. I really really do. I think she's a stupid bitch who has no clue what she's talking about, and is playing victim and acting offended to make a living out of stirring shit.

That being said, I do not approve of the haters she's pissed off sending death threats, and I'd be appalled if someone actually carried out an attack against her. Yes, she's an idiot, yes, her words piss me off, but its her right to speak those words, just as its my right to ignore them. She'll never be welcome under my roof, and as long as her words are uttered outside of it, its none of my business.

You really think she should hire more bodyguards every time she makes a podcast? Really? that's the kind of society we should live in? One where we express our views while packing a 9mm just in case some punk wants to shut us up?

[JohnBrown1917]

Once you've done that, where do you draw the line? Who decides what's appropriate or inappropriate to talk about? Once you've silenced all the neo-nazis, will you go after the anti-communists? once you've silenced them, will you then move to silence anyone whose views oppose your own? Before long, anyone who says anything that irritates you should be silenced, by force if needed.

And then voila, we're in a fascist state.

We have already done that, still not a fascist state for not allowing incitement of violence.
Just ask the Germans, they got similiar laws.

[GrieverXIII]

This shouldn't be the case though. We SHOULD be better than that. To attack someone who's saying something we don't want to hear. At least when its on public property.

What happened here was wrong. People should not be hit or killed for the simple act of SPEAKING.

I agree, it shouldn't happen.

He shouldn't get any following for spreading a message that lead to a worldwide massacre either, but he does.

People are people. Call me a fatalist but sometimes "bad things" aren't preventable.

[Vankrys]

free speech doesn't protect you from being punched in the face lmao

well, let's look at it this way.

In his twisted mind, he is righteous, he has the moral highground to call for ethnic cleansing. We know it's wrong on so many level but should we silence him or threaten physical harm?

Let's consider for a minute the case of extremist islamic countries. Criticizing islam or its prophet mohammed can escalate to violence and death. In their twisted mind, they believe in allah, the follow their prophet's example, they are the righteous, they have the moral highground to physically harm you, or kill you, for your critics on islam.

See the parallel. We have to elevate higher than that. Regardless how wrong or repulsive we think one's discourse may be, we shouldn't stoop to the level of violence and barbarism.

Instead, we should offer counter opinion, debunk what needs to be debunked, and trust in our fellow man to see what's right and make an educated choice.

[Zelk]

well, let's look at it this way.

In his twisted mind, he is righteous, he has the moral highground to call for ethnic cleansing. We know it's wrong on so many level but should we silence him or threaten physical harm?

Let's consider for a minute the case of extremist islamic countries. Criticizing islam or its prophet mohammed can escalate to violence and death. In their twisted mind, they believe in allah, the follow their prophet's example, they are the righteous, they have the moral highground to physically harm you, or kill you, for your critics on islam.

See the parallel. We have to elevate higher than that. Regardless how wrong or repulsive we think one's discourse may be, we shouldn't stoop to the level of violence and barbarism.

Instead, we should offer counter opinion, debunk what needs to be debunked, and trust in our fellow man to see what's right and make an educated choice.

and they say the left is deluded

[GrieverXIII]

and they say the left is deluded

Extremists of both spectrum tend to be.

[DeadmanWalking]

If you're punched in the face because of what you say, then the speech is not really free. There's a cost associated with expressing what you want.

Again, I'm not defending the racist neo-nazi asshole. His message is horrible, and he's scum of the earth, but if he hasn't actually hurt anyone, then attacking him EXCLUSIVELY because he was talking shit is wrong.

His message is horrible, but its his democratic right to spread it. Punching him in the face exclusively because you don't like what he's SAYING, goes against everything that democracy stands for.

Now, if he's actually killed, or hurt other people, in order to enforce his racist views, that's another thing entirely.

Yet another person who doesn't know what freedom of speech means. It doesn't protect you from being punched. It protects you from your government punishing you for what you say. It is illegal to assault someone but is not covered under speech rights.

When you punch someone for talking shit you get charged with assault, not assault and breaking someone's right to free speech. No matter how you want to try and explain it the freedom of speech only protects you from the government punishing you.

[Garnier Fructis]

The difference you guys are having is that some of you are talking about the right to free speech and some of you are talking about the principle of free speech.

It's not altogether clear what principle of free speech even is, at any rate. People on this forum and elsewhere have a nasty tendency to conflate their views being criticized and lampooned with their views being silenced. And their whining about free speech hilariously misses the fact that others are also using free speech to criticize them.