| >"I am asking about situation where person B can, with reason, and on their own will, ignore the pleading of person A for violence. Or what if there is no person B? Should we punish person A regardless?" That is ideally for the courts to decide, whether A's utterances and calls for action can reasonably be said to have incited B's actions. Obviously B bears the primary responsibility, but A can also be culpable, especially if they have knowledge that their words are very likely to spur people like B into action. >"The act of speech must be without consequence, if it's to be free." No. Even in the US ("LAND OF THE FREE RAH RAH RAH HOME OF THE BRAVE U S A U S A U S A"), freedom of speech is not absolute. There are laws against libel and slander, for good reason. If you walk up to your employer and call them a fascist limp-dicked low-paying money-grubbing shitstain, what do you think will happen? Do you think you'll just keep your job, keep working as if nothing happened? Do you think they'll just ignore that and act as if nothing had happened? What if you do the same thing by posting it publicly on the internet or in a newspaper? Do you expect there to be no consequences? In other words, freedom of speech means that you are free to express yourself, with no threat of censorship. It does not absolve you from responsibility for what you said. Stand by what you say, take responsibility. |