In my opinion the problem with this article is three fold: 1) it changes the definition of violence -- the dictionary defines violence as an act of physical force against another -- to call an act of speech an act of violence simply isnt correct and is designed to create a false equivalency 2) if we go by this premise....that government should protect people from offensive speech -- we are really advocating violence on those who have done no physical harm to another --- regardless of how offensive an act is, if it is not itself a violent act (defined the same way Merriam Websters dictionary defines it, not the way this author wishes) -- then it does not deserve a violent response....including government acts of violence such as using force to punish or jailing someone for an act of speech 3) it would also be fair to note that if we allow government violence/ punishment on those who make peaceful but offensive acts of speech then wed have a major challenge deciding which offensive acts would be banned or punished with violence....some Muslims would wish that scorning the Prophet would be punished, some Christians would believe something else and others would want something else....often these wishes would directly conflict with each other. I suppose at the end the question is -- what right does someone have to do violence to another who has done no violence?
Posted on: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:28:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015