Two, it still doesn't change the fact that it is occuring because you've said something that REASONABLE reaction to led to the infringement of another persons rights.
It's rational and reasonable to suggest that someone who hears someone yell "fire" may contact the fire department.
It's not rational and reasonable to suggest that someone who hears someone say "Gays are vile sinners", for example, is going to go off and murder someone.
The irony of this statement after your elaborate lead in filled with assumptions as if they're unquestionable facts is astounding.It's never as simple as you think.
I know, I spoke about them in post 62, 5 posts befoer the one you quoted.As for speaking (and writing) untruths, we have laws on that as well. We call it Slander, Libel, and Perjury.
So I'm trying to understand this bizarre logic...
Let's say a Newspaper comes out with the editor putting in a headline on page one going "Conservatives are a bunch of cocksucking racists"
Are you suggesting people don't have a right to stop buying that paper?
OR are you suggesting they have the right to stop buying that paper, but don't have a right to state the reason for why they're stopping buying that paper?
OR are you suggesting they have the right to stop buying the paper, and why they won't buy the paper, but they can't say they'd be open to buying it again if the editor is fired?
Or are you suggesting they have hte right to stop buying the paper, state why they won't buy it, state they'll buy it again if he's fired, but can't state that the guy SHOULD be fired?
I'm confused here at which point SPECIFICALLY you feel that the paying publics speech/action should be not allowed....
do we know the contents of the complaint? how do we know it wasn't "you fire that SOB you have him silenced or else" or was it "i didn't like what that man said but he has the right to say it" and how do we know the complaints was not directed by the white house or from the many organizations that do his bidding? we all know how thin skinned Obama is. He recently chastised the Huff and Puff post for stepping out of line and for once wrote a somewhat critical article about him. i bet they wont do that again
If I say Christian Bale is a murderer, most of those that hear it would have reason to be immedietely HIGHLY skeptical and not believe it. He's a famous actor, he's covered by magazines and shows and papers all over. He's well within the public eye. If he killed someone it would be massive news that people would be highly likely to know about, so there's little reason for my random statement about him to be taken serious by almost anyone and thus would have little to no likely harmful effect on him.
If I say Bill, my next door neighbor, is a murderer then that's a different situation. People have less reasons to be immedietely highly skeptical of me and not believe it. He's not famous, he's not well known, there isn't any great amount of coverage on him and his life. There's no reason for a random person I talk to at work to know whether or not "Bill" is a murderer or not. There is a far greater chance of damage being caused to him due to that defamation because there is not a preconcieved general understanding regarding him in the greater public at large.
To go further on that point as well, context of course matters greatly. If I called my neighbor "Bill" a murder in a statement saying "I can't beleive my neighbor eats so much steak all the time, the man is a murderer with all the cows that have been slaughtered to feed him", then there's likely nothing to come of it even though he's not a public figure. In the context, it's clear I'm stating an opinion regarding the issue of eating animal meat and not making a statement suggesting a literal accusation of murder, the legal term.
Similarly, most of the time when people are talking about "Obama" or "Bush" being a "murderer", it's actually statement of opinion and not a claim of concrete legal fact...typically resolving around things like military action or laws they've passed. Combined with the higher standard for public figures and the ability to show LEGITIMATE HARM being done is extremely problematic.
Which DOES go back to the notion that our rights are meant to be generally protecetd from infringement by the government save for instances where the infringment is necessary to prevent the realistic harm of others.
How do you know that the Founder's weren't actually space aliens that created the constitution in league with the Devil!? We must seriously consider, act, and rant based on it being true because HOW DO WE KNOW IT'S NOT?!!!!!!! OMG!!!!
We are now dealing with the most sensitive group of people in our lifetimes.