These are all very sound and reasonable points, Pat. And I very much do agree that there are important distinctions between Trump's "glorification of violence" and our alleged words doing the same. Not the least of which, of course, is that Trump's words actually did play a role in causing violence, in all likelihood. In contrast, the on…
These are all very sound and reasonable points, Pat. And I very much do agree that there are important distinctions between Trump's "glorification of violence" and our alleged words doing the same. Not the least of which, of course, is that Trump's words actually did play a role in causing violence, in all likelihood. In contrast, the only violence caused by AR activists' words is "violence" against corporate profits. That's not violence, in any meaningful sense of the word.
My main concern, however, is about precedent. Even if we think these cases are very different, is the cost of creating a precedent, where merely suggestive words, that can be interpreted in various ways, can be censored as violent... is that precedent likely to be used to. make the world a better place? I suspect not, esp in a world as polarized as the one we live in today.
All valid concerns Wayne, that deserve consideration. It is my belief, though, that concern about precedents should never be a deterrent for filing a free speech lawsuit or for prosecuting people who are accused of acting outside the parameters of Free Speech Rights, as these cases are how we establish the parameters of our right, and just about every case has the potential to set bad/good precedent. Two very important non-free speech cases- Brown v. Board Of Education & Obergefell v. Hodges - were won despite people who opposed filing them for fear of setting bad precedent. It is my understanding, based on experience, that our courts are required to consider the different circumstances surrounding different free speech cases, such as the circumstances regarding Trump's speech versus DxE's speech in Utah. I may be an anomaly but I trust our system, even though I recognize its flaws and think there have been, and continue to be, some bad precedents being set. However, precedents can always be challenged and overturned, e.g., Plessey v. Ferguson and more recently Roe v. Wade.
These are all very sound and reasonable points, Pat. And I very much do agree that there are important distinctions between Trump's "glorification of violence" and our alleged words doing the same. Not the least of which, of course, is that Trump's words actually did play a role in causing violence, in all likelihood. In contrast, the only violence caused by AR activists' words is "violence" against corporate profits. That's not violence, in any meaningful sense of the word.
My main concern, however, is about precedent. Even if we think these cases are very different, is the cost of creating a precedent, where merely suggestive words, that can be interpreted in various ways, can be censored as violent... is that precedent likely to be used to. make the world a better place? I suspect not, esp in a world as polarized as the one we live in today.
All valid concerns Wayne, that deserve consideration. It is my belief, though, that concern about precedents should never be a deterrent for filing a free speech lawsuit or for prosecuting people who are accused of acting outside the parameters of Free Speech Rights, as these cases are how we establish the parameters of our right, and just about every case has the potential to set bad/good precedent. Two very important non-free speech cases- Brown v. Board Of Education & Obergefell v. Hodges - were won despite people who opposed filing them for fear of setting bad precedent. It is my understanding, based on experience, that our courts are required to consider the different circumstances surrounding different free speech cases, such as the circumstances regarding Trump's speech versus DxE's speech in Utah. I may be an anomaly but I trust our system, even though I recognize its flaws and think there have been, and continue to be, some bad precedents being set. However, precedents can always be challenged and overturned, e.g., Plessey v. Ferguson and more recently Roe v. Wade.