> speech ... killed

I’m not familiar with the incident (save it, don’t care), but I can promise you that no honest coroner has ever given “free speech” as a cause of death.

It's commonly called "stochastic terrorism".

charlottesville was a pretty consequential event politically, which also result in a death.

this is not the first dismissive comment I've had on HN of people showing a disregard for knowledge & literally not caring to know the issue they comment on. both instances i've participated in involved race which is telling to me imho. Seems to go against the ideals of this forum.

I'm no trying to argue either way just point out the example in the article. Personally I lean more towards free speech at all costs.

Really? What was the race of the person who died? What was the race of the person who killed them?

If you're making the case that protests should not be allowed because sometimes violence occurs, then no protests would ever be allowed.

I'm no arguing either way - though personally I lean towards unrestricted speech at all costs. But just giving the example in the article.

The problem is this sort of logic can be applied to any position. You can always cherry-pick an example of someone with views that you don't like engaging in violence, and then use that to justify silencing anyone else that holds similar views on the grounds that it "may lead to violence".

Of course, the people who make these types of arguments never apply them consistently. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that someone still talking about a car accident in Charlottesville four years ago, while not mentioning the numerous murders, assaults, arsons, and other crimes committed by BLM activists, is someone that is genuinely concerned about "inciting violence".