Alright /pol/, it's time for a philosophical discussion. This train of thought was sparked by the recent verdict of Michelle Carter, who was found guilty of manslaughter as a result of texts that encouraged her boyfriend to kill himself. This verdict surprised many lawyers and does not have any legal precedence as far as I am aware of. A lot of you clearly agree with this verdict, yet this kind of argument, that "speech is a form of violence" is commonly used among the left. With that being said, I have some questions for you:
>Are words that encourage others to commit acts of violence a form of violence in and of themselves? Or does the onus of responsibility ultimately and solely rely on the person who commited the physical act of violence?
>At what point do words go beyond free speech and become an act of violence?
>If verbal bullying leads say, a gay or transgender kid to commit suicide, were the words exchanged by the bully an act of violence?
>If speech leads to a government passing policies that directly or indirectly harm or kill specific groups of people, is said speech an act of violence?
>>130212525
I dont think speech is violence, but telling someone who is very unstable and is thinking of ending themselves to actually do it does deserve some form of punishment, considering the fact that she was purposefully trying to get him to kill himself and not using it as a figure of speech.
>>130212717
>I dont think speech is violence
Ok, let me give you a more extreme example. If a political leader tells his adherents to go commit suicide evem though he himself won't blow himself up, is that violence? If not, then the whole notion of "violent ideologies" is basically invalid. Violence can only be applied to actions themselves, not the words or ideas where they may derive from.