She's arguing that it's free speech and that we should take back our freedom because the shooters are anti-free-speech.
Posted by
Max
May 7 '15, 18:26
|
If that were true, wouldn't the shooters also be targeting churches, synagogues, think tanks, PACs, politicians, newspapers, art schools, tv stations...
Is it any coincidence that they picked the event due to this particular content, and that she promoted the content not as an opinion or criticism but as a provocation? Take the targeted group out of it - if someone uses speech to incite violence, isn't that a crime?
I don't see any part of her argument that deserves agreeing with. Even if you disagree with 'hate crimes' then the situation is merely "crime happens so we need police on patrol." There's no speech being subverted here nor are we giving in to violent individuals when we exercise discretion in antagonistic speech.
|
Responses:
|