Ok so things have died down a bit over Richard Spencer getting clocked in the face.
Some people have cheered on the attacker because Spencer is a Nazi, other have said that it was an act of cowardice on the part of the Left.
First off, just who is Richard Spencer?
He's a White supremacist and president of White nationalist think tank National Policy Institute. He calls for a homeland for the White race and calls for "peaceful ethic cleansing". Overall a pretty rotten individual. The guy is a piece of shit, there is no argument on that one. The world would be a better place if he just went out into the desert and lived as a hermit.
But is that enough to physically assault someone, and therefore revoke their right to free speech (yes I'm aware the 1st Amendment applies to the government and not private parties)? Let's be clear here, Spencer wasn't physically attacking anyone, just voicing his views. If there is going to be a time where it is acceptable to physically assault someone for their speech then where are going to draw the line?
Are we going to draw the line at "evil" and "hateful" ideology? That sounds nice and reasonable, but the fact of the matter is, while there is an absolute evil, that absolute evil is surrounded by grey area. Is maliciously killing another person evil? Yes. Is accidentally killing someone with no intent to do so evil? Well it could be, like if someone was driving drunk. Is killing someone in-self defense evil? Well the law says no... but it also says you could go too far...
That being said, what happens when we start getting into that gray haze around the evil core? Many Christians see abortion as evil and a pro-choice stance as an evil ideology. Ok, so if the standard of where we draw the line then is what is "evil" and "hateful" then logically it would follow that because someone from a particular group or mindset, or just of a particular thought saw someone who was voicing support for a pro-choice view, that it would be permissible to punch that pro-choice person in the face.
While yes there are limits to the 1st Amendment but here's the thing, those limits are whether or not the government is allowed to censor someone's speech. It has nothing do to with permitting acts of violence on an individual for non-protected speech. State regulations and limitations on the 1st Amendment are also set on the basis of public order, as opposed to controlling thought. Spencer was punched for what he said, not how he said it.
So again, where do we draw the line? On that note, who's the one who gets to decide where the line is to begin with? Because of that grey area that surrounds the things that are universally considered evil, that's an axe that swings both ways. Say it is ok to punch someone in the face on the basis for political speech, is the Left willing to accept being punched in the face by someone on the Right who sees them as an emerging Mao Tstung? If the answer is yes, then well I guess the Left better get caught up with the Right when it comes to self-defense preparations. If the answer is no, then why should they be exempt from getting clocked in the face while the other side isn't?
Say we do allow for violence to be inflicted on a person on the basis of unpopular speech. How far should that violence go? Why stop at a punch and why not go the whole nine yards and just stab or shoot the speaker to death? After all, they're evil right? And the only thing for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing right? I doubt more than a handful of radicals will argue that Nazis aren't evil, so why shouldn't it be acceptable to just shoot a Nazi or some crazy right winger even if they're not physically harming someone?
Well there's been just as much evil on the left as there has been on the right, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the Kims have killed countless people in the name of Communism. So if people on one side have the freedom to start attacking people on the other side for nothing more than their speech, then the people on the other side also have the freedom to punch the other side as well. Otherwise we have a situation where only pre-approve opinions are allowed. That's not freedom, there's no freedom of thought there.
And is that where we want to go? Where only prescribed ideas are acceptable. Well ok, if that's where you want to take us, then what happens when you're out of power and it's the other side that gets to decide what is right-think? What happens when you're getting knocked in the face, or just out right shot? Not because of anything you did, but because of something you said...
I've been called a very opinionated person in the past. Lately I don't agree too much with the Left, in fact it see a lot of the ideas the Left is floating to be out right repugnant and down right insidious. Is it ok then for me to punch an SJW hipster square on the nose as hard as I can, not because he was threatening or assaulting me, but because he was saying that minorities are too weak to get by without the help of "privileged" Whites? Is it ok for me to cave in his face?
Remember, the axe has to swing both ways unless we want thought police, if we're even going to be swinging the axe around to being with. If you want thought police, then I sure hope you're ready for the proverbial gulag when the other side becomes the thought police.
There's also an underlying sense of arrogance on the side that would argue that it is permissible to physically assault someone based upon their speech. It shows a distinct lack of faith in those around them. Think about it for a second, if someone is spewing insane despicable ideology like Nazism, than reasonable people wouldn't give that person a second thought. They would quickly go out of business in the market place of ideas on their own. But instead, the, I guess I'll call them activists, sees a need to physically attack them to silence them. As if they have the exclusive domain of knowing what should and shouldn't be allowed into the market place of ideas. It shows that the activists thinks they know better than anyone else.
Well who died and made you king and gave you authority to decide what ideas I do and don't get exposed to? I'll decide what I will and won't take seriously thank you very much, especially if I've been around a tad bit longer than you have been.
I've heard the argument that Spencer is too charismatic and could one day get people to carry out his bidding, and that's why physically assaulting him is ok. Well, thing with that is that line of reasoning can be used to justify assassination for something that someone might or might not do. Is that a road we want to go down on? Sure it's one thing when it's someone you don't like who gets whacked, but what if someone else sees your side as the bad guys and it's someone you support that gets whacked? Is that something you're prepared to accept as a reality?
Now if Spencer was out causing violence, under US law it would be legally justified to even go as far as fatally shooting him depending on what he was doing. Acts of violence is a wholly different story. If Spencer was running around assaulting people, trying to burn down buildings with molotov cocktails, trying to run people over with his car, then yes by all means shoot the fucker dead. Shoot him dead and anyone else with him being a danger to other people.
And that's the thing beyond a narrow set of circumstances, like murder, like subjugating other's individual rights, there's a bit of grey area and degrees of evil. So if you're going to argue that it's ok to censor someone with violence based upon the content of their speech, then you'd best be prepared for the other side to the do the same thing to you. Because in that grey area one person's evil conduct is another's permissible conduct. You might think that speech from some radical feminist like this (satire or not) is permissible, but another may take this as evil in the level of Nazis... so does that mean it's ok for someone to come punch Lori Day in the face? Or you if you're speaking in support of it in public? The other thing to consider though, if violence based upon speech content is the road you want to go down on then that fist might not even be a fist at all, it could be a blade, it could be a bullet. Is that really a road you want to go down on? Is being on the receiving end of violence, potentially lethal violence, for the contents of your speech something you are prepared to accept?
No?
Well that's the reason courts have ruled the way they have, courts are very reluctant to restrict speech based on content. Equality would mean that the axe must swing both ways. If it's permitted to assault one extreme, then it's permitted to assault the other extreme. Otherwise there really is only freedom of thought so long as you pick an approved thought to have. And who gets to have the power to choose what approved thought is? The mob? The State? The Party? It doesn't matter because as long as there is someone who is in charge of deciding what is right-think and there is a mechanism to enforce that, there is no freedom of thought.
So why even swing the axe at all? That's why you would still be charged with a crime even if the person you committed the criminal act on deserved it like a Nazi would. Does he deserve to get cracked in the face? Sure does. Should he? No. In law the principal is generally that words are not enough to allow for assault. Same principal here, words alone, generally, aren't enough to justify violence.
Personally I'll take freedom over any sort of content filtering by any random person with no State authority. At least a state authority has to act within the confines of a system, a random person punch people in the face because they don't like what they have to say is acting under nothing more than their feelings.
No comments:
Post a Comment