I am not a fan of the esoteric language of legalese and have used this very example to illustrate how flaccid a handle most folks have on language. I'm sure you've also heard, many times, the terms burgle and rob used synonymously.
On a silly note, I wonder if the "assault" rifle controversy could be quelled with silencers. Or maybe by arguing that an assault rifle should be far less menacing than a battery musket.
> Historically, battery and assault were considered separate crimes, with battery requiring that the aggressor physically strike or offensively touch the victim. In that way, a battery was a "completed" assault. Many modern statutes don't bother to distinguish between the two crimes, as evidenced by the fact that the phrase "assault and battery" has become as common as "salt and pepper." These days, statutes often refer to crimes of actual physical violence as assaults.
The phrasing of "words can be violence" is so simple that of course, many people are going to agree with that, because in many cases "words" are the direct cause of violence.
Outright incitement is the most obvious one, direct or otherwise. Meddlesome priests beware.
If I keep banging on about how Hillary Clinton is literally raping children in the basement of a pizza restaurant and that all the police are in on it and refuse to do anything, then it's entirely rational and moral to do something about it. Similarly if you genuinely believe an election is rigged and "stolen", then again, it's entirely rational and moral to do something about it.
Of course actually believing these outrageous claims is rather less rational. But once you do accept them, then action is quite logical and morally defensible. If anything, inaction would be the immoral choice – evil triumphing when good men do nothing and all that.
I find this kind of free speech absolutism naïve beyond belief.
I also think that if the question phrased with more nuance, they would fine less "shocking" results.
Kind of nice of FIRE to go to such lengths to highlight that most Americans, including most men and most Republicans, don’t agree with FIRE, or it’s directors, in the slightest.
Kind of odd they didn’t seem to take any notice of the why behind that fact, though.
"...some definitions are somewhat broader, such as the World Health Organization's definition, as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened[2] or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."
Words used to intimidate someone by threatening violence ("give me your money or I will beat you up") or resulting in maldevelopment (a childhood along the lines of "you are a horrible kid and I wish I had never given birth to you") could easily fit into those examples of verbal violence.
> Only slightly more than a third of Americans (37%) think citizens should have the right to use profanity when speaking to elected officials.
That needs to be plotted over time. I think that belief used to be far higher, with actual laws to enforce it. Also, the use of profanity can be regulated and is not absolute. I would not suggest that a defendant in a courtroom use profanity to demean an elected judge.
> 87% said American citizens definitely or probably should have the right to speak freely during a public comment session, and only 8% said they definitely or probably should not.
Public comments, like at a school board meeting, are also not absolute rights. Someone cannot use that as a forum to call for violence - that is not a protected free speech right.
There's also the ambiguity of what "speak freely" means in the question. Does it apply only to the government officials who run the meeting (who are bound by First Amendment concerns) or does it also mean being free from social consequences by others in the community (where freedom of association is also a First Amendment right)?
> 48% said American citizens definitely or probably should have the right to take a ballot selfie, and 34% said they definitely or probably should not.
Which is why the ballot box has multiple ballots - even if you take a picture, as part of a vote selling campaign, for example, they need more than a selfie to be sure you haven't faked the selfie while actually casting another ballot.
> “Free speech isn't violence, it's the best alternative to violence ever invented.”
No. Everyone knows free speech can create violence. Sadly free speech includes lying, victimisation of others and creating false expectations. Perhaps "helpful speech" is a better alternative?
