Out of the context of the whole, no. As part of the whole, yes. by telling people how they should think. Yes, because it can lead to unnecessary censorship. If you tell somebody they are incorrect rather than different, when an opinion is expressed, can be dangerous. But this is the difference between telling somebody "You are incorrect" and "I think that you are incorrect." Did I indicate otherwise?
Your answer to this shooting is that people should pack heat. Carrying a gun makes people more fearful. So, quite literally, you said we should have a culture of fear.
@babaorum Give it up. Pointless like explaining the internet to a person from the 18th century. A lesson that this cute country needs to learn on his own.....
Disagree. There is speech that can incite others to commit violent acts, or to cause the target to commit a violent act (either against others or against themselves). But this place where "should" and "can" and "might" exist is a very, very solid shade of grey.
1. Most TV is privately run, privately owned, and unregulated by the FCC 2a. It won't happen in the US because there's not much of an audience for one. 2b. The audience isn't profitable enough to convince said TV stations to carry it. 2c. Public pressure will squash anything like that.
I do, and I am in favor of more restrictions in speech than Timon19 is. There are quite often complaints on free speech. Just look at our Supreme Court cases.
So, since pretty much anything even slightly controversial will meet this standard in one person, the intent is "for naught"? The large majority of public debate is, by this standard, dangerous. 1. Why is it dangerous in itself to tell someone they are incorrect? 2. Is Brummie committing violence against a wide swath of people when he tells us we're wrong because a, b, c, d, e, f,...bbb, cccc, see figure 34r/832? Or that he flatly just says we're wrong and stupid. (Just using you as an illustrative example, Brummie. You know I secretly adore you.) Your entire line of argumentation is leading to that notion. Now, if you're saying that we should be willing to accept that "danger" that you outline, then I've got no quarrel, I guess, except that I think you're rendering the word meaningless.
Interesting to say that, even though we did not have our own holocaust, we did manage to have slavery, legally, and a systematic denial of rights to groups of people based on race and gender and sexual orientation that are still being battled in court 225 years after our constitution was approved. But we don't look at them as speech issues in the same light you do, and that could be due to the difference in written word/art versus pictorial art/word.
1. It's Matt's answer, though I'm sympathetic to it. 2. Your answer appears to be to submit to the inevitable. 3. Advocating for the right to defend oneself is not mandating anything. As an example, I personally choose not to exercise my right to keep and bear arms, just as I personally choose not to exercise my presumed right to smoke cigarettes, snort cocaine, shoot up heroin, or smoke the demon weed. 4. Guns != fear, because you fear guns.
The standard for "fighting words" is extraordinarily high. Cartoons do not meet that standard by some way. The person responsible for murder is, unsurprisingly, the one committing it. To contend otherwise is to put someone's feelings of offense above another's right to life in the eyes of the law. That's perverse.
In a way, we did have our own holocaust, though a bit different. We sort of attempted to exterminate the various Indian tribes, when we weren't allying with them out of convenience. We mostly succeeded, too.
I think that if you accepted the scientific study in the link I provided, you would conclude that Guns == fear. If you have chosen not to accept that scientific evidence (it's a randomized experiment), then you will have to explain why it is not a valid experiment. If you do accept the evidence, you must come to the conclusion that guns create fear.
Let's suppose I DO accept it AND draw the same conclusion you do from it (that guns == fear). That doesn't change that your solution is to submit to the inevitable.
Fair point. Again, it is the difference between telling somebody how they should think and giving an opinion. Granted, there are points where people are wrong, but that is often in the most extreme cases. [qutoe]1. Why is it dangerous in itself to tell someone they are incorrect? 2. Is Brummie committing violence against a wide swath of people when he tells us we're wrong because a, b, c, d, e, f,...bbb, cccc, see figure 34r/832?[/quote] I did not leave it so simple. You are reading my argument not how it was written. Somehow, by deconstructing my statement, you missed the part where I mention that political cartoons are "interpretive."
Odds of dying in a classroom shooting? "No greater than" 1 in a million (and that is a massive hedge making it seem likelier than it is) Odds of dying by electrocution? 1 in 5000 It's evidently at least twice as likely to die by asteroid than in a school shooting. I know that doesn't comfort the families of victims, but it is what it is.
What is persuasion, other than "telling someone what they should think"? Then explain or try again to answer. So? How are you connecting interpretation with danger?
The old line about guns not killing people...yeah, people do kill other people. And they are not responsible gun owners. It is not the guns that most people fear (as a gun itself) but the lack of responsibility that a gun owner shows/has.
The way people talk about it, and the way it's almost always reported in the media, the GUN is the thing that has the agency and is the object to be feared. A gun "goes off" or "discharges", as opposed to a person "firing the gun", or "discharging a round". The gun gets the passive voice and agency by a whole lot of people.