Comment by armada651
1 year ago
How so? Could you elaborate?
Just to be clear, this is in no way intended as an endorsement of rioting.
1 year ago
How so? Could you elaborate?
Just to be clear, this is in no way intended as an endorsement of rioting.
Violence is not speech. Is punching a person in the face as having a conversation with him?
The term speech is very broadly defined in law. A purely physical act can be speech in a certain context. It does not have to literally involve an exchange of words.
Many protests may turn into riots, that does not suddenly mean that the people involved in the violence are no longer expressing an opinion.
The term speech is very broadly defined because there are a lot of ways to convey meaning. Some of them then become ambiguous and you have to resolve those ambiguities and that gets messy. But only the messy cases are messy. Riots characteristically aren't a messy case, they're violence in the same way that publishing a newspaper article is speech.
Moreover, if you mess up the messy cases then you should try to do better but society will probably survive, whereas if you censor in the cases that are pure speech or don't punish the actions that are pure violence, you're the baddies.
15 replies →