Is It Permissible to Punch/Assault Neo-Nazis Without Provocation?

It's still down to moral agency. Does the person acting upon the command have the ability to discriminate between right and wrong?

Change the scenario to Tom Hanks playing a prison guard in the green mile. He's given an order by the governor to execute a man he knows is innocent. The governor signed the DOE because he was told by a judge that the man is guilty, who was told by a jury that the man is guilty.

At the end of the day, one hand pulled the switch that connected the circuit to old sparky. The hand of a man who knew that the man about to die was innocent.

Who is wrong?

 

So, let's use the example of the non-retarded person then. Both have moral agency, both the commander, and the executioner.

Person A tells person B to murder another man. B does it. Obviously B should be charged with a crime. And in my opinion, and every western legal systems opinion, person A should also be charged with a crime.

Not interested in who's most to blame, that's a whole other discussion, but do you think person A should not be charged with a crime?

 

I agree that the government shouldn't be stopping free speech, but what if college students stop the free speech of others with differing ideas or beliefs, like they are doing now in universities around the country?

 

As you said, the retarded man doesn't have any moral agency, thus in this(very crude) example, speech is indeed a method of pulling a trigger.
However, what he doesn't realize in his fallacy is that the retarded person(IQ under 80, etc), doesn't comprehend what it means to murder.

Because he doesn't comprehend it, he doesn't act on it. The guy would have to LITERALLY show the retarded person what a murder looks like(Which I guess, isn't too hard with movies, etc.) But if the retarded person is self-aware enough to know it could happen to him, he'll reject that premise.

So his rare example is less of a 5% shot of happening.

 

I've noticed since the election the insanity of the left has been on full display, including coming around to support political violence. It seems that many of you guys on the left do think it's OK to "punch a Nazi." A "Nazi" of course being defined downward as anyone you oppose politically, like a Trump supporter. Spencer, the example in this thread, is a white nationalist, but he isn't a Nazi, and even if he were, shouldn't be punched on the street without provocation.

This I think, is how our democracy will die. When enough people think political violence is justified, regardless of election results, then "elections" will eventually be decided by political violence and the threat of it, just like any 3rd world "democracy."

 

You "hate" racism, but seem to support torture and murder.

Interesting moral code.

 

Please Shaq and several NBA players are stating the "flat earth" is real. Are you going something about stupid speech too? Free speech is free speech or it's not.

 

The problem with that is that you are doing what people of the Hitler mentality would do- not opposing that mindset, but endorsing it.

 

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by that?

 

Who are you calling a lefty?
Of course I like freedom of speech, it's just that I think it has limits. Standing in front of a crowded Mosque and saying all Christians must die is not a right any more than saying kill all blacks is.
How far are you prepared to take your freedom of speech?

 

The above is sedition, not free speech.

 

We do absolutely nothing to violate the rights of neo-nazis. Of course violence must be prosecuted. It is up to sentencing judges to decide on what basis and under which circumstances to mitigate a sentence. Society has plenty of disincentives already in place to discourage people from expressing extremely controversial and divisive speech. It just needs to have a sense of urgency and unanimity on when to use them.

 

So you agree that there are limits to free speech?

 

No, there is a difference between free speech and sedition.

 

I'd call it incitement to racial or religious hatred not sedition.
Sedition is conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
Which is very different from ''kill all blacks''.

 

If you think it's ok to punch someone for this..


Then it is just as fine to punch someone for this..

Or this..

 

I think it's self explanatory.

 

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"

From - "The American President".

 

No, it is not justifiable, legally or morally.

The only reason I see to use physical force is in self-defense, in the rare situation that you are 90% sure the other party is going to attack you (flashback to Six Day War)

 

we must remember what makes us a great country , restricting ones speech sounds like Authoritarianism to me.

 

I'm perfectly fine with increasing sympathies towards alt/far-right causes.

 

There is quite literally no legal basis in the united states, under which it is permissible to physically assault someone simply for holding ideas and viewpoints counter to your own, no matter how heinous they may seem. It if is deemed permissible to physically assault someone for being a supporter of nazism, then it must also be permissible to physically assault someone who believes sharia law should be allowed in the united states.

Where is the line drawn?

 

It gets a little complicated because it depends on the context and physical circumstances. For example, if a person wishes to write an article advocating the killing of all Jews, this speech should be legal, however it is not legal to act on it or to plan with another to act on it. (This would be a crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime.) It would also be illegal to physically gather a group of likeminded people and say, "Let's go kill the Jews!" and then set out to do it. (This could be Incitement to Riot or again, Conspiracy) Another good example of repulsive speech would be speech advocating for pedophilia. The speech itself is not illegal. Acting on it is illegal, as it should be.

The punishment for really repulsive speech is ridicule and exclusion and isolation from normal society.

But we get on a slippery slope when we start making unpopular opinions illegal. Who decides?

We are seeing ample examples lately of the left not permitting the right to even speak which I find disturbing.

 

In a word, NO.

 

Free speech doesn't allow inciting violence.