You're saying that anyone who gets beaten for their opinion had it coming?

Truly we live in evil times.

Yes, you should be allowed to call him that. No, you should not be allowed to punch him in the face, and should be arrested and jailed for doing so.

Violence is justified to protect yourself or others from violence. Not from speech, from violence. There are some small grey areas, but this isn't rocket science.

> Should Richard Spencer be punched in the face for being a bigoted piece of human garbage?

No? I'm not sure why you're advocating violence. If we start allowing violence against bad people, where do we stop?

This line of thinking is almost always a less-than-useful simplification.

Should punching Richard Spencer be punishable by the law?

Yes.

Is punching Richard Spencer "moral"?

No.

"Should" you punch Richard Spencer?

No.

Is punching Richard Spencer "understandable"?

... this is grey. However, if you have a sufficient ideological motivation in a certain direction, the argument essentially makes itself: Violence! It's bad. If you're not motivated in the opposite direction, it's the easiest thing in the world to stop there. If you're motivated enough, you can tack on some extra easy hops in logic: "You're advocating violence! You're evil!"

Yet if somebody drives a car into a group of fellow citizens whom you know or identify with, killing one of them, and a news outlet puts out a story calling the dead a whore, you'll quickly find yourself willing to meditate on the scenario more thoroughly.

> But then there are sentiments that are beyond the pale.

A lot of people are working, successfully it appears, to make the pale a lot smaller by publicly destroying reasonable peoples' lives for the most minor infractions as a warning to the rest of us.

Which suits them.