Freedom of Speech and freedom to respond to speech:

[underlankers]

People labor under three common misconceptions of freedom of speech:

1) The freedom to speak means that the words have an associated mandate for others to listen to them and to respect these words simply due to their being spoken. This, to put it bluntly, is nonsense. It always has been, and it will always be. There is certainly freedom to say that

Comments

[jerseycajun]

In scenario two, do you expect the law to stand by and let the violence go because the idiot was asking for it?

Otherwise I agree with pretty much everything, just wanted a clarification on that part.

Edit: Sorry, missed the part where you clarified.
My bad

[underlankers]

No, that's why I mentioned that it's still a crime. Idiots who provoke violence still have the protection of the law against assault and battery aimed at their person. Or at least should in areas/situations where they don't in practice.

[jerseycajun]

Glad we agree then. Sometimes in the past some of the things you've said about first amendment stuff made me wonder.

But yeah, by the time the cops break it up, I can imagine the guy on the other end of it already got his extra-legal punishment.

[underlankers]

I included this sentence in the OP to emphasize that point, just to clarify this for anyone else who has this same question:

The acts are crimes and should be prosecuted, yes, absolutely.

I believe that attacking someone because they say something nasty is wrong, but I also think if people deliberately provoke violent, dangerous people, then they should realize that they're not going to be happy if they get what they want.

[devil_ad_vocate]

Mr. Basile/Basselly/what'shisname's film could be considered 'shouting fire in a crowded theater'. Concealing his identity and misleading those who participated in the production shows he planned to scam investors in the project - or he intended to encourage a violent reaction with it. Either way, he should suffer some punishment. The idiot Florida preacher who burned the Quran was at least open with his stupidity. The guy with the film seems to involve much more than just a 'free speech' issue.

[vitsli]

>> If a Neo-Nazi wades into a gathering of extremist Israeli movements and starts shouting "Opa war recht" he has himself to blame for grabbing the tiger's tail.

Yeee-ha! That's my favorite!
So if you're humiliated by a police or a gang member after posting a true police- or gang-related corruption case story in your blog - there shall be no protection for you cause you knew exactly who you're messing with. Deal with the consequences!

>>taunt homicidal maniacs and then it turns out that well, pissing off murderous extremists might just be a bad idea.

So you're _afraid_ of these weirdos who keep your mouth shut... But good news everyone - the First Amendment is here to protect you!
It's exactly to protect those who speak from murderous extremists, homicidal maniacs and others who's might you're so afraid of.

And remember, "some speeches should be prosecuted" point of view is exactly what corrupted officials, religious maniacs and murderous extremists have.
Where "some speeches should be prosecuted" there is no Free Speech.

[underlankers]

Evidently noting that attacking people who deliberately provoke you is still a crime and should still be prosecuted flies over people's heads.

[oportet]

Pissing off murderous extremists is a bad idea, but in this case - the murderous extremists aren't attacking who pissed them off in the first place. They're attacking people for not stopping the people who pissed them off, which only gives credence to the 'they hate us for our freedoms' crowd. One step back and two more steps back.

[sandwichwarrior]

Well they do.

Or rather they hate us because we are wealthy, powerful, and can get away with shit.

[turkleblot]

"Freedom carries with it responsibilities"

The only responsibility it carries is the responsibility to keep it. Nothing else. It's freedom, not "freedom so long as you don't offend anyone."