Posted: Sat 12 Apr 2008 15:38 Post subject: Should this site permit advocacy of criminal violence?
Should this site permit advocacy of criminal violence?
It should be easy to understand why I am squeamish about hosting a website that openly advocates criminal violence. It may be harder to understand, but I am also unwilling to host a website that condones, justifies, sympathizes with, feels compassion for, or even "understands" the commission of criminal violence.
Despite this squeamishness, I opened a thread to allow debate on whether criminal violence is ever morally justified in response to (only) offensive words. I had hoped that presenting it as a moral and intellectual issue could keep discussion on track. Alas, I erred.
First, Sjames injected a tangent of whether offensive words (or "fighting words") should be prosecuted under the law. This is an interesting tangent, but to inject it into the above topic implicitly equated legal prosecution with civilian criminal violence. So, I split it off to a separate thread about legal prosecution of words. Nevertheless, despite repeated warnings, Sjames continued to equate legal prosecution (of certain words) with criminal violence by civilians (in retaliation for certain words). Eventually, he was suspended for one week for continuing despite warnings to post about legal prosecution into a thread about criminal violence and refusing to post his messages about legal prosecution into the correct thread (the one about legal prosecution).
Second, in a thread having nothing to do with criminal violence, Anonymouse responded to another member with "I'm not going to sugarcoat it: things like this can and do provoke violent responses from some people," thereby diverting the thread to a discussion of criminal violence. In his very next response (in the same post), he wrote, "Even though I frown upon violence most of the time, if a person who utters the N word suddenly finds himself on the receiving end of a right cross, I will not shed a tear for him. Sometimes the consequences and repercussions for your actions are harsh." This not only tried to divert the thread to a topic that has its own thread (prompting a warning), but his words "even though I frown upon violence most of the time..." obviously mean that he advocates criminal violence some of the time, and the example he gives of when he does not "frown upon" violence is specifically a criminal assault in response to a spoken word.
Third, a moderator equated criminal violence by a prisoner against another prisoner as retaliation for the latter's own criminal violence, to criminal violence as retaliation for a spoken word.
Finally, private discussion of this subject (should this website allow advocacy of criminal violence) seems to have gotten derailed.
Some excuse the acceptance of criminal violence as long as we do not call it "advocacy" and call it "understanding" or "sympathy" or "compassion" for the perpetrator of criminal violence instead. As far as I am concerned, what you call support of criminal violence is irrelevant. It is the support itself, call it what you will, that I am squeamish about.
Some imply that if the society under the law can morally prosecute certain words, then civilians can commit criminal violence against certain words. As far as I cam concerned, legal prosecution for certain words does not excuse criminal violence in retaliation for certain words, any more than prosecution for illegal parking excuses criminal violence in retaliation for illegal parking.
Some equate criminal violence in retaliation for criminal violence with criminal violence in retaliation for words. As far as I am concerned, criminal violence in retaliation for criminal violence is unjustified, but I am not all that squeamish about "understanding" such a thing. But criminal violence in retaliation for criminal violence is a very different thing in my view from criminal violence in retaliation for a spoken word.
If this discussion continues, someone is sure to bring up "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" to suggest that some laws are unjust and must morally be disobeyed. (In MLK's specific example, they were laws that gave legal rights to some U.S. citizens but denied those same rights to others because of their "racial" membership. – Like affirmative action, but the other way around.) Someone else is sure to equate warfare with criminal violence. And someone will equate violence in self-defense after words that threaten immediate injury or death (e.g.: "Give me your wallet or I will blow your brains out.") with criminal violence against words that offend (e.g.: "get off the sidewalk, nigger" or "get off the sidewalk, white man").
Considering the situation, I am considering a new rule that bans all advocacy (support, understanding, compassion, etc) of criminal violence. I understand that this may end discussion of legitimate topics, but I would rather that this site be seen as too timid about discussing criminal violence than that it be seen as haven for those who sometimes "do not frown upon" criminal violence.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 353 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Sat 12 Apr 2008 18:34 Post subject:
I have a few comments.
First, I agree almost completely with the following assessment:
Quote:
"Even though I frown upon violence most of the time, if a person who utters the N word suddenly finds himself on the receiving end of a right cross, I will not shed a tear for him. Sometimes the consequences and repercussions for your actions are harsh." This not only tried to divert the thread to a topic that has its own thread (prompting a warning), but his words "even though I frown upon violence most of the time..." obviously mean that he advocates criminal violence some of the time, and the example he gives of when he does not "frown upon" violence is specifically a criminal assault in response to a spoken word.
I regret his suspension, however, because I suspect that by challenging him on this statement, rather than shutting down the discussion, he would have likely realized that he is saying that he does not frown on physical violence in response to the N word. From what I have read of his posts thus far, I think he possibly misspoke. I would have given him the opportunity to make himself completely clear before even threatening a suspension.
Second, I would like to point out that the term "criminal violence" is not a term with a regularly and easily applicable definition. There are many different situations written into the law of almost all jurisdictions that describe when one is permitted to use violence. Whether the facts necessary to constitute one of those situations is present is a question that is almost always open to much debate, and many times is decided by a jury of twelve. If the facts necessary to constitute the privelege are present, the violence is not criminal. If the facts are not present, the violence is criminal-by which I believe we agree simply means prohibited by law. I am not sure we should shut down the line of debate of whether certain violence is or is not criminal.
Thirdly, in our every day lives we are always free to advocate for the change of laws we disagree with. I am not sure why one would want to shut down such debate here, of course when all other rules are followed.
I am not sure how one would prohibit advocacy of "criminal violence" without closing the above lines of debate as well.
I also do see a distinction between understanding the actions of an individual, and even having compassion for that individual, and support for their actions.
Permit me the following example. A calls B a word that both B and myself find reprehensible. B hits A. I can understand the feelings that compelled B to hit A and emphasize with B's desire to hit A, all while feeling no sympathy for A, while at the same time agreeing that B should have controlled his actions and must be held resposible for the consequences in a law abiding society.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
