727
The Nation, oldest progressive newspaper in the US, doesn't pull any punches
(www.thenation.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
727 points (99.5% liked)
Progressive Politics
3250 readers
653 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Murder isn't a violation of the US definition of free speech, unless the government does the murdering.
Still a crime, but not a constitutional free speech violation.
Op implied that free speech does not protect you from being murdered, which is technically true, but it's nonsensical unless he believes murder to be an acceptable response to free speech. It might happen, and in fact it did happen, but it's not ok so why even bring it up? Unless you think it's ok, in which case you are an absolute moron.
Nowhere( in response to your post ) did anyone say murder was an acceptable response, just that if you murder someone , nobody is charging you with a violation of free speech because that would be nonsensical.
And the only reason they had to say that much is because your argument was incorrect.
If you want to argue proportional response, have at it, but you didn't, you argued :
Society cannot allow or justify murdering someone for free speech. Op implied that murder was a response to speech, and I am saying murder should not be allowed or considered as a response. It shouldn't be hand waved away like "ah well what did you expect", or fafo or whatever. It should be condemned unanimously.
That's a nice soundbite.
So those are two different things you have right there.
"Op implied that murder was a response to speech" , indeed he got shot because someone thought he deserved it.
"Murder should not be allowed or considered as a response"
This is where is goes off the rails a bit.
OP wasn't saying (or implying) he should have been shot for talking , just that it seems reasonable to assume he had.
"I don't care that this person is dead" isn't the same as "this person deserved to die"
If you can't see how those two things are different i can see why you're struggling.
Subjective but you're entitled to your opinion.
"He's dead and the world is a better place overall" is also an opinion to which people are entitled (unless you've been arguing some other kind of free speech? )
And as it seems you are having a hard time with this i'll add the explicit context:
" He's dead and the world is a better place overall ( this doesn't mean i wanted him dead, but i'm not sad that he is ) "
You can argue that it's a better place with him gone, but it's a much worse place because it happened and because people are celebrating, because it implies that society accepts murdering people who express differing opinions.
I wasn't arguing that, but that is my subjective opinion.
That's more complicated, i partially agree but I'll reserve final judgement for a while to see how it pans out.
I'm not sure how to tell you this, but open pretty much any historical book of any era and you'll find the same.
I'm not saying it's ideal and each to their own but i am saying i think it's naive to ignore the entire history of humanity (and pre-humanity) and expect this current society to be different for some reason.
A large part of the entire history of our species is built on murdering the "other".
This society and all almost all societies, past and present have accepted/encouraged murdering other groups for stuff and power.
In fact, I'd argue we are better at it than ever.
I agree that it's human nature and always will be. But that doesn't mean it's ok or that we should shrug and say oh well. It means that we need to always be guarding against it and condemning it when it happens. There are times in history where ideological violence has gotten way out of hand, and i believe we can avoid that if we try. And if we instead encourage it then we will have another cultural revolution or holocaust like in China or Russia or Germany.
Agreed.
Agreed, in principle, but i suspect our definitions of what qualifies as "it" will differ greatly.
I think that's naively optimistic, though having it as a goal isn't the worst thing we could be doing.
Also there are times in history where blind optimism has let toxic and harmful ideologies fester and take root.
Think "Paradox of tolerance".
That's a hard, giant leap in logic, you'd need to at least have some evidence of direct causation before I'd even consider that as a reasonable line of thought.
But that is only my opinion, with all that entails.