And 30% even agree that initiating violence against talkers is justified. Calling anyone a "snowflake" is now also objectionable.

Unfortunately, they are gaining ground. The subject survey shows all groups except GOP favoring the left, if only by a small margin, and gaining over previous polls. I'm waiting to see when vilifying the 1% and the greedy billionaires will be recognized as hate speech.

Hope not. Otherwise they may ban amazing toys,
https://youtu.be/QU-Px0VjQ2w

I wonder if my favorite word/concept "Revolution" would be classified as Hate Speech?

If one must have bank robbers, then certainly courteous ones are preferred...

Jan, smiling

Even if you threaten to kill someone because they were impolite to you and both know that a homicide will not result there is a certain implied threat of some kind of retaliation. There are many levels of violence, it is the responsibility of all involved to make those determinations, in the case of uncomfortable conversation it is always possible to withdraw.

The wife of my friend while working at a bank received a phone call letting her know that the robber intended to be there at three o'clock could she have some money ready? She brushed it off as a prank but her boss called the FBI and the robber showed up at three where he was immediately taken into custody. Considering the robber had been polite, courteous to make an appointment and prompt was it fair for the FBI to take him down? Shouldn't they have politely waited outside?

Here in Florida, reaction is based on reasonable belief, if a vehicle goes by and someone yells out the window "Im gonna kill you" and you then fire on the vehicle, your dumbass is rightfully going to jail. If, (this recently happened to me) when told he was trespassing, a man comes out of a wooded property you are in charge of, at a fast pace towards you, reaches behind his waistband and says " I`ve got one" , you are well within your rights to put him down. This particular mensa applicant came to a fast halt and showed his empty hands when I drew on him, then ran off. When the law arrived, I was informed had I shot him, I would not be arrested. The responding LEO also informed me this chump had been released from local lock up a week prior, he was in for threatening to kill school kids on the sidewalk while in possession of a knife. The key words are "reasonable belief" The speech is one part of the equation, actions are the other.

Very true.

Behind words are the people that expressed them. I agree that certain words can hurt, ones feelings. They can add to the cause of undesirable actions. But by themselves they only add weight to some action.
This does not mean that “yelling” (an action) “Fire!” in a crowded theater is right. No. It is very very wrong.

That has never been true. Words - we call them "slander" - can do great damage. This has been acknowledged since ancient times, and is one of the reasons that "fightin' words" exist. If your ability to interact with the people around you depends on your family's reputation, then anything that decreases the respect for your family is serious business.

Jan

If you were a teller in a bank, you would!

Also, if someone came up behind a person they knew was really afraid of snakes and pointed at a pile of debris and yelled, "Watch out! Rattlesnake!" and that person jumped away from the 'snake' and into the path of a car, then the person who yelled, "Snake." is responsible.

I think we have to keep from letting our frustration at the snowflake 'you used the wrong pronoun to me and I am irreparably hurt' subset of society polarize us to an irrational degree. There are cases where 'words hurt'...it is just not what a lot of people are referring to when they use this phrase.

Jan

I would agree with that. But if they just hand you a note, with the exact same words, then backed away, would you also be justified to do that?

I believe that, if a person comes toward you (physical action) and says, "I am going to kill you!" (words) that what he has said is considered to add weight to his intentions in judging whether you were justified in kicking his kneecaps into concave formations.

Jan

I just don’t see your example as “violent.”
Those words may be bad, untrue, vindictive, etc.
Now words grouped together such as,
“Go out and kill all the capitalist pigs you can find!” (Example only)
Do obviously express that people do violent actions.

That was a very interesting survey, thank you for posting a link to it.

It is inescapably true that words can be a form of violence: Shouting "Fire!" in a movie theater is the most often quoted example, but I will provide a different one.

I could walk up to you and say, "I just wanted to say that I am very sorry. What? You don't know? I work in your doctor's office and I saw from your chart that you have just been diagnosed with cancer. Oh. Well...your doctor will probably call you today..."

That is definitely using 'words as violence'. These words do not literally break bones, but they could ruin your relationship, your finances, or your job. Even when you find out that "I" was lying, there would be real damage done.

That being said, most things that are labeled 'violent words' do not fall in that category. We need a better definition of word violence.

Jan

Sheryl Attkisson made this the lead topic on her news show, "Full Measure," yesterday (which I recommend).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V4Yn...

NO. The REACTION to words by the evil and the stupid, ignorant, and mal-educated can be violent.

" if words are a form of violence then it is acceptable to use physical violence in response."
This is where the phrase "fighting words" comes from, but fortunately it sounds like a joke to modern ear.

A word is missing.
It is Physical. Physical Violence is what is feared. Remember "sticks and stones.....?" Of course, as an adult, words can hurt you. Lies can damage your reputation. At first the lies were applied to those who had the courage to put their opinions in a newspaper.. Then came radio and TV. And today, we have the ultimate thing called "social media." But, it doesn't take courage to opine on that -- only foolishness. It is self censoring and and is only meaningful when prominent persons are talked to or about, by other prominent persons Otherwise it is a general public spleen vent.

Words as a form of violence is not a new idea.

There's the concept of "fighting words", words so mean spirited that the law views responding to them with violence as self-defense. The phrase "fighting words" sounds like a joke now in most places.

Seeing violent crimes as worse if they're motivated by "terrorism" or "hate", however, is increasing. The idea is "terrorism" and "hate crimes" are intended to intimidate entire groups, not just hurt the direct targets of violence. I do not agree with this, but the concept itself is not anti free speech.

I also wonder if some respondents were thinking of direct, credible threats to specific individuals. I don't know if I call such words "violence", but they're definitely not protected speech.

Contrary to other commenters here, I am optimistic. "That's blasphemy! and "those are fighting words!" sound like jokes, except for in areas controlled by theocracy. 200 years ago, OTOH educated people in the US saw calling someone a paltroon in a newspaper as a form of violence that would make the target look weak unless he responded with a duel.

The notion that some evil group of people are successfully eroding respect for free speech seems completely wrong to me.

As “Hate art” is in the eyes of the beholder, “Hate speech” is in the ears of the listener

Hate speech - a term that should be banned. Serious biased vitriol that results in harm can, and should, be prosecuted as inciting to riot. If no harm results from even the most vile spoken or written words, then we should simply note them, and keep an eye on the originator to see if they act in concert with their words.

Control of a people is a result of promoting insecurity and lack of self esteem. If you can convince them that they are so fragile that they need safe spaces to protect them from hearing things that might upset them, the leash has been set. Rational thought is set aside, as the fragile await the next pronouncement from their "rescuers," who are really their captors.

A few years ago on the leftist site Pharyngula, the subject of cyberbullying came up. I threw in a comment alluding to "Sticks and stones. . .", and the snowflakes were just horrified.

Its time to just ignore the ranting of the liberals. Its all garbage that they put out in order to disarm people who think, and further the liberal agenda