Because everything I do is in service of victims of injustice, my actions are just.
There is no “cycle of violence”, only hidden power structures of oppression to be destroyed.
If I tell you to jump from a bridge to your death, is it my fault for telling you or your fault for acting upon it?
Punish actions, not words. The moment you punish peoples words, you remove the ability to debate, converse, express, rectify, understand.
> [The Supreme Court] held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
At least some things classified as hate speech, like racial slurs, seem to me to fall clearly under the category of fighting words. Is the fighting words doctrine fully unsound? Unsound only when applied to social media? Is hate speech just another name for it, or is it an expansion of it?
EDIT: My original link does not include the narrowing of the doctrine. [1] is a better source:
> the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs."
Generalizing everyone that disagrees with you as "those types" and then calling me pathetic to group me in with them is exactly the problem is was alluding to.