Let Him Have It - Thoughts on "Inciting Violence"

[Carborendum]

A 1991 film called Let Him Have It dramatized the true story of Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig.  The former was a borderline mentally handicapped individual who was involved in a robbery with Craig.  When a policeman caught up with them, he ordered Bentley to hand over the gun he was holding.  Seeing Bentley hesitating, Craig then said "Let him have it."  Bentley shot the policeman.

Fast forward to trial: Bentley said he was encouraging Bentley to hand over the gun rather than shoot the gun.  This has been debated ever since this watershed trial in the UK.  In the film, the actor's tone and expression was neutral as to the meaning.  This was done on purpose by the director & writer.  To this day, no one really knows what Craig's intent was.

Fast forward to the age of social media and snowflakes wielding the big stick of lawsuits and protests ("mostly peaceful", of course).

Nowadays, social media gets very heated.  And people say things more freely online than they ever would in person.  I believe that since the shutdown (possibly before) people have spent so much time online that they've forgotten how to shut that off IRL.

Regardless, people say things that they don't mean.  Some things are downright mean.  Some things really are "inciteful".  By that, I mean that they use language which in past generations would have been called "fighting words."  i.e. speech that legally justified physical violence as a response.

I am unclear on the status of such words in the legal realm.  At some point there are words that cannot be taken to be anything other than giving instructions to someone to kill another.

While I'm sure we'd all agree that it would be wise to stay away from such language entirely, the reality is that we all get heated.  We all say things that we later regret.  And it may be saintly of us to simply forget what most people say in such moments.  Just tack it up to "being human."  And sometimes, it seems that not only is the only way to make a point to get angry, but sometimes the point really NEEDS to be made.

At what point do we stand up and pay attention to "being mean"?  When is it legally termed to be "inciteful"? (or whatever the legal term would be).  At what point is it just mean, and when is it necessary?

• A Democrat Governor said she was issuing a "Call to Arms" against the Dobbs decision.  Obviously, this was just political rhetoric.  But people showed up at the private homes of SCOTUS justices in a manner that certainly  satisfies the definition of "menacing".  One person came with an assassination kit and later stated he wanted to kill the justices.  The governor refused to apologize or retract. She even refused to denounce this would be assassin.  Nothing happened to her.
• A trans woman (a very muscular masculine man dressing as a woman) held Ben Shapiro by the scruff of his neck (making physical contact) and warned him that if he didn't retract his statement about "men are men and women are women" that he (Shapiro) would go "home in a body bag".  Nothing happened to this very muscular person.  And other people cheered the man on for calling out such "hate speech."  Never retracted, never apologized.  All others in the room later consoled the muscular man instead of condemning him. 
  • One person simply "mentioned" that he probably shouldn't have said that to Ben, "but... Ben was being worse..." (Meaning that stating men are men is inciting violence.)
• Limbaugh said, "I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus – living fossils – so we will never forget what these people stood for."  From context, he was clearly using hyperbole.  But someone who is not too intelligent could say that he was "taking instructions" from Limbaugh.  Yet, Limbaugh clearly said he was not meaning it literally.  He was trying to make a philosophical argument.
• A conservative senator said: "We’re going to keep building the party until we’re hunting Democrats with dogs."  Clearly a figurative statement.  
• A democrat says in a rally, "We're going to take these &%$## OUT!)  He didn't say "out of office.  He said "we're going to take (them) OUT!".  I think that was clearly just about competition.
• A republican candidate drew a map with bullseyes shown on areas around the country that should be targeted for canvassing and political activity to win elections.  Liberal media immediately took her to task for using those bullseyes as a "dog whistle" to assassinate Democrat candidates.  (uh-huh).

Edited March 1, 2023 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

Don't forget when Chuck Schumer tried to drum up violence against SCOTUS justices by saying "I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions”.   Since chief justice is a lifetime gig, it's not like Schumer could claim he was talking about paying a political penalty or getting voted out or something.   And then later, Nicholas Roske got arrested in front of Kavanaugh's home with his gun and ammo and crowbar and pepper spray and zip ties, while trying to assassinate Kavanaugh. 

And don't forget in 2017, when the Bernie Sanders supporter James T. Hodgkinson carried out a mass shooting at a baseball park in Virginia, where 24 Republican congressmen had gathered to practice for a Congressional Charity Baseball Game.  Can't really draw a direct line or prove motive, but at the time, the Democrats were full of inflammatory rhetoric about the R healthcare efforts, plenty of inflammatory talk from D reps about how Republicans were trying to kill people.

And I will never forget the riots and violence in 2020/2021, and what the right was saying about it, vs what the left was saying about it.  Here's several examples. 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

At what point do we stand up and pay attention to "being mean"?  When is it legally termed to be "inciteful"? (or whatever the legal term would be).  At what point is it just mean, and when is it necessary?

Well, when folks decide it's necessary, they square up and start encouraging others to do so as well,  Fighting and killing in order to settle things, is as old as humanity.   

When it comes to questions like "when is it necessary", my answer is something like "almost never".   I'm a fan of making a strong defense against violent aggressors, and being prepared to encounter them, but I've never personally experienced a single time when I figured becoming one was the right answer.  

Here's my answer to such questions:   https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-leaders-condemn-violence-and-lawless-behavior-during-times-of-unrest

Edited March 1, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Here's my answer to such questions:   https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-leaders-condemn-violence-and-lawless-behavior-during-times-of-unrest

I spoke with my brother yesterday.  He's apparently "commuting" to NYC two days per month.  I asked him if the crime/violence is as bad as I keep hearing on the news.

He said, no.  By sheer numbers of crimes, yes, it is much higher than anywhere else he's been.  But per capita, it isn't all that bad.  You do have to be careful about a few locations in town, etc.  But he didn't feel scared while he was there.

That was kind of surprising.  Maybe, we're just being programmed by the media to get a lot more worried about the state of the country than we really should be.

...

Naaahhh.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, when folks decide it's necessary, they square up and start encouraging others to do so as well,  Fighting and killing in order to settle things, is as old as humanity.   

When it comes to questions like "when is it necessary", my answer is something like "almost never".   I'm a fan of making a strong defense against violent aggressors, and being prepared to encounter them, but I've never personally experienced a single time when I figured becoming one was the right answer.  

The question I was asking about "necessary" etc. was about speech, not physicality. 

We can hold our tongues in the name of politeness.  But the Founding Fathers included freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights for a reason.  At what point do we decide to say unpleasant truths that will have a high probability of causing (cue: Steven He) emotional damage because someone needs to say it?

Justification of physical violence is outlined in the Declaration.  But in interpersonal relationships?  When political ideology is being shoved into our faces?

Edited March 1, 2023 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

36 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We can hold our tongues in the name of politeness.  But the Founding Fathers included freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights for a reason.  At what point do we decide to say unpleasant truths that will have a high probability of causing (cue: Steven He) emotional damage because someone needs to say it?

Heh - I get the reference!   And I'm really against the notion of suppressing speech because it might hurt someone's feelings.  No, speech isn't violence.  I mean, there's a time and a place, and we can talk what's effective and what's just spouting off.  But you can find me happily arguing away in TikTok threads about such things.  

Reminds me of another cool church link:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2013-11-1020-what-is-religious-freedom?lang=eng

[LDSGator]

20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Heh - I get the reference!   And I'm really against the notion of suppressing speech because it might hurt someone's feelings.  No, speech isn't violence.  I mean, there's a time and a place, and we can talk what's effective and what's just spouting off.  But you can find me happily arguing away in TikTok threads about such things.  

Reminds me of another cool church link:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2013-11-1020-what-is-religious-freedom?lang=eng

There absolutely is a time and place to defend yourself and family from a threat. However I can’t shake the fact that some people carry chips on their shoulders and enjoy poking a bear because they genuinely want to use violence and are looking for an excuse. Especially when all the odds are in their favor. 
 

These guys are almost always the same who talk about how tough they are but when you ask them to spar/go on the mats they have every excuse in the book for not doing it. They love to talk about being tough-as long as they have every advantage. We see them all the time. 
 

This of course goes for the right wing guy who is so “on guard” that he grips your hand with a vice grip during a simple handshake to show “dominance”-but it also goes for your overweight cousin who posts pictures of himself “fighting fascism” when in reality he’s going outside of his basement to cry for five minutes then run back inside. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

The really interesting thing about it? It’s always the quiet ones who are most dangerous. Loudmouths like me and those looking for fights/reasons to use violence are cowards at heart. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by LDSGator

[mirkwood]

 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

The legal lay of the land, FWIW, is laid out  in Brandenburg v. Ohio; and Wikipedia’s treatment of that case is decent.

My two thoughts are:

1). If I make a habit out of interpreting other peoples’ intemperate rhetoric uncharitably, I’d better be ready to see my own intemperate rhetoric similarly parsed; and

2). None of the examples cited in the OP strike me as being really helpful in the sense of advancing policy analysis through thoughtful discussion.  They are more geared towards getting people whipped up into passionate state in hope that they will a) act now, or b) create a memory that will induce them to act later.  That is, by its nature, a very delicate and dangerous game to be playing (especially if the passion you are eliciting is fear or anger); even if you think you’re being clear in expressing what you expect your audience to do or to not do.  Now to be clear, I don’t think it creates legal responsibility for whatever a speaker’s moonbat fringe does thereafter.  I’m not even persuaded that it creates moral responsibility.  But I would be impressed by a candidate who simply chose not to play that game [of polemics; and instead tried to keep things relatively policy-oriented and analytical]; and I am increasingly gravitating to the position that political rallies are just plain stupid.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Godless]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I spoke with my brother yesterday.  He's apparently "commuting" to NYC two days per month.  I asked him if the crime/violence is as bad as I keep hearing on the news.

He said, no.  By sheer numbers of crimes, yes, it is much higher than anywhere else he's been.  But per capita, it isn't all that bad.  You do have to be careful about a few locations in town, etc.  But he didn't feel scared while he was there.

That was kind of surprising.  Maybe, we're just being programmed by the media to get a lot more worried about the state of the country than we really should be.

...

Naaahhh.

Statistically, more people = more crime. Per capita rates tell the bigger story (like COVID rates at the height of the pandemic, when NY and CA had the highest numbers, but the highest rates were in places like South friggin Dakota).

Highest and lowest crime rates per capita

Addressing the main topic, I'm of the opinion that incendiary rhetoric has gotten out of hand, and that the problem is bipartisan. I don't pretend to know where the line of direct responsibility is, but I think the line exists. 

I'm also of the opinion that expected fear of legal repercussions in the digital age has made extremists too bold because they don't expect real consequences. I've seen a couple of viral videos recently that had me thinking that I don't think I would be able to be a non-violent observer if the events were playing out in front of me IRL.

The first video was of a gay couple on a train with their daughter, who looked like she couldn't have been older than 6. A man approached them and started shouting at them about being groomers and sexually exploiting the little girl.

The second video featured a young interracial couple being verbally assaulted by a white supremacist (who was the one recording video) while walking in public. It was a lot of "white replacement" rhetoric, accusing the white girl of contributing to the "extinction of the white race".

In both videos, bystanders intervened and ultimately diffused the situations without physicality. Maybe it's the old skinhead in me (not that kind), but I don't think I could see those events playing out in front of me and stay peaceful. Some people need to "touch grass", and some people need to eat it.

I think this invites an intriguing question, at what point is hate speech not protected? Yes, I believe that 1A protects Klan rallies and Nazi cosplay. But I also believe that people have a right to not be directly verbally assaulted by hateful people. 

[Just_A_Guy]

@Godless, I never would have taken you for a Justice Alito fanboy.  

[Guest Godless]

37 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@Godless, I never would have taken you for a Justice Alito fanboy.  

I lost two friends and a chunk of my own mental health to war, so I have a special dose of contempt for the WBC. In the case you're referencing, I don't think Alito was objectively correct. I also acknowledge that my gut response to the scenarios I outlined in my previous post is not objectively (or legally) correct. And I'm okay with that.

[Carborendum]

14 hours ago, Godless said:

Statistically, more people = more crime. Per capita rates tell the bigger story (like COVID rates at the height of the pandemic, when NY and CA had the highest numbers, but the highest rates were in places like South friggin Dakota).

Highest and lowest crime rates per capita

Maybe I missed it.  But I didn't see anything about South Dakota.  Here are the worst (from worst to least worst).

1. St. Louis, Missouri
2. Jackson, Mississippi
3. Detroit, Michigan
4. New Orleans, Louisiana
5. Baltimore, Maryland
6. Memphis, Tennessee
7. Cleveland, Ohio
8. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
9. Kansas City, Missouri
10. Shreveport, Louisiana

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Maybe I missed it.  But I didn't see anything about South Dakota.  Here are the worst (from worst to least worst).

1. St. Louis, Missouri
2. Jackson, Mississippi
3. Detroit, Michigan
4. New Orleans, Louisiana
5. Baltimore, Maryland
6. Memphis, Tennessee
7. Cleveland, Ohio
8. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
9. Kansas City, Missouri
10. Shreveport, Louisiana

I was comparing crime rates to COVID rates. At some of the worst points of the pandemic, per capita infection and death rates were led by states like South Dakota and Wisconsin, not NY or California.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

I was comparing crime rates to COVID rates. At some of the worst points of the pandemic, per capita infection and death rates were led by states like South Dakota and Wisconsin, not NY or California.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

You are right that the top 8 states were certainly not the most populous states.  But still no South Dakota.  It doesn't appear until after several more populous states.

[Guest Godless]

39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

You are right that the top 8 states were certainly not the most populous states.  But still no South Dakota.  It doesn't appear until after several more populous states.

My mistake, then. I recall seeing them spike quite a bit in the '20-'21 week-to-week reports*, but that obviously didn't translate to the overall three year numbers. 

*I live in Minnesota and there were multiple spike periods when yellow/orange MN was surrounded by four dark red states on the COVID charts and people were joking about building a wall.

[LDSGator]

On 3/1/2023 at 11:15 PM, Godless said:

lost two friends and a chunk of my own mental health to war, so I have a special dose of contempt for the WBC

Even the most zealous, hardcore atheist could not damage the name of Christianity more than the Westboro Baptist Church. 
 

They were more clown like until they started protesting military funerals. They crossed the line into human garbage when they did that, even if they have the right to do it. Which they do. 

[Vort]

On 3/1/2023 at 8:15 PM, Godless said:

I lost two friends and a chunk of my own mental health to war, so I have a special dose of contempt for the WBC.

Contempt corrupts the spirit of him who feels it. I encourage you to reject feelings of contempt toward other human beings.

34 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Even the most zealous, hardcore atheist could not damage the name of Christianity more than the Westboro Baptist Church.

Those who condemn Christianity for the actions of a tiny church like the WBC are in principle no different from those who condemn Islam for the actions of terrorists, the primary difference being that the WBC represents far less than a thousandth of one percent of Christianity. If the name of Christianity is damaged in the minds of some because of the WBC's actions, that is to the condemnation of those who believe it. See my remark above to Godless regarding those who rejoice in feeling contempt toward others, individually or as a group. They are contemptible. (Just kidding.)

Edited March 3, 2023 by Vort
One day, I shall learn to spell.

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Those who condemn Christianity for the actions of a tiny church like the WBC are in principle no difference from those who condemn Islam for the actions of terrorists, the primary difference being that the WBC represents far less than a thousandth of one percent of Christianity

Yup. Agree.