Can we continue that discussion from Will's derailed thread?

[stahta01]

Verbal assault DOES NOT mean verbal insults!!!!!

[Elkvis]

Verbal assault DOES NOT mean verbal insults!!!!!

I agree. Calling someone stupid, as a very mild example, clearly has the potential to be insulting, but it is not verbal assault. It's not even verbal abuse, in and of itself, unless there is some sort of pattern of behavior.

[Mario F.]

Verbal assault DOES NOT mean verbal insults!!!!!

Replace all instances of verbal assault with verbal abuse, if that makes you feel better.

BTW, you should read that well into the last paragraph.

[Alpo]

I thought about this for a while. Hate speech is a thing. You go to jail typically because your words would incite violence against the group. It's not really that poorly defined. See Hate Speech Law & Legal Definition. That said, how do you tell what hate speech is from regular, uncouth insults? Well, I think a good starting point would be to look for actual call to action, look for indoctrination. You should look for a track record of speech that creates otherness.

I really think that saying hate speech doesn't excuse violence is tantamount to victim blaming. Tell me how you are not saying that there is no hate speech because the victim acts out. Sure, it's wrong, but there are a myriad of circumstances. How about a thought experiment. A bunch of frat boys start spewing misogyny at your local bar. They start criticizing her outfit and saying she's going to get raped in that. She tries to leave and they block the way and continue talking. Does she attack her way through here, or does she wait for things to escalate?

Like I said before, this is why we try cases: one person is allegedly guilty of assault and battery, and this incident brought to light the victim's hate speech, which he is guilty of. It might not play out in the courts in such an ideal fashion, but it doesn't matter.

Again, there is a confusion of terms. We weren't talking about something that was an imminent threat, just insults. I've agreed imminent threats of physical harm are a danger, I don't know what more to say on that part.

"I really think that saying hate speech doesn't excuse violence is tantamount to victim blaming."

^ This victimhood is something that was created out of scratch. I don't agree that simple insults make a person a victim (and insults are what we are speaking of). We can't even agree on what words could be said to a person that would make them a victim. So how is not excusing violence from such an ill-defined concept blaming the victim?

"They start criticizing her outfit and saying she's going to get raped in that. She tries to leave and they block the way and continue talking."

^ Again I have to reiterate everything I've said up until this point has been against violence based on insults. When several people threaten rape, and physically block a person from leaving, this removes the element of choice. If she tries to leave and they handle her, or block her way, or do anything else that physically violates her rights, of course she would be in the right to respond.

I've noticed a pattern however. This equivocation keeps popping up, I'm speaking about doing violence against someone who has insulted you, and if you should be excused for it. This is what the argument has been since the beginning. Of course if someone redefines "insult" to mean "rape threats" or "violent threats" or even "physical molestation" my side of the argument becomes ludicrous by default.

[MutantJohn]

I guess that's all fair enough, Alpo, but if I heard someone say a bunch of racist or homophobic slurs against someone else, I wouldn't stop it when the racist/homophobe is getting their *** beat. Probably just go, "Sounds about right" and walk away.

[whiteflags]

We weren't talking about something that was an imminent threat, just insults.

And I wasn't talking about insults; I was talking about hate speech. The problem I had is that you specifically referenced hate speech in your argument. I thought you chose those words deliberately, so I argued that the definition was not as muddy as you claimed.

If you really did just mean an insult, then I would say that is different from hate speech.

In fact I would actually drop the argument, since you merely chose your words poorly.

[Alpo]

And I wasn't talking about insults; I was talking about hate speech. The problem I had is that you specifically referenced hate speech in your argument. I thought you chose those words deliberately, so I argued that the definition was not as muddy as you claimed.

If you really did just mean an insult, then I would say that is different from hate speech.

In fact I would actually drop the argument, since you merely chose your words poorly.

Well yes, but I warned about this several pages ago. Originally we were talking of hate speech, then this was equated with verbal assault. I've been repeating that these are muddy terms like every other comment lol.

"It's a bit like saying, "I'll believe JibertyJax is responsible for physical assault until someone gives me a reason why it's not.". "

"When I say I don't believe, I mean I don't understand the definition."

"And this is the crux: Your definition of verbal assault is "threat of violence", where as Mario's was "insult".

"Also there is a huge question over what is considered verbal abuse, with some folks saying that it's defined as indicating a threat, and others saying an insult is equivalent to assault."

- Those are all mine, the miscommunication happened way back at the beginning:

"Have we devolved to where we make hate speech the justification for someone to ignore the law agaiinst assaulting another person?" - Will1

"I could probably physically assault someone if they called me an ......, since ...... is a verbal assault. Muslims have nothing to do with it." - Mario

Since then everyone's been using terms interchangeably, that's what my whole "legalese speak" was referencing.

Edit: I thought that since the confusion was mine, I would take the time to google the definitions and try to clarify my positions on each.

1. Hate Speech - Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

- Hate speech can not excuse physical assault on the part of the definition that includes "offending" or "insulting". As for the "threat" part, probably this would excuse assault, but it's up to the court.

2. Verbal Abuse - "Verbal abuse (also known as reviling) is described as a negative defining statement told to the victim or about the victim, or by withholding any response, thereby defining the target as non-existent."

- This absolutely excuses nothing. Ignoring someone does not cause physical assault, neither does negatively defining someone.

3. Verbal Assault - "At common law, an assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. ..."

- This would seem to excuse assault, but possible not in every case. I suppose a court would have to determine if your apprehension was justified. It's probably best to play it safe if you feel physically threatened. Try to get away from the situation first, then if you are prevented, bust out your pepper spray (or whatever).

[Elkvis]

Try to get away from the situation first, then if you are prevented, bust out your pepper spray (or whatever).

Many states (including Minnesota, which I referenced) require an attempt to retreat, or at least serious consideration of a non-violent escape, before the use of force of any kind can be legally justified.

[Will1]

Give me an account as to why anyone thinks there's an imbalance between verbal and physical assault. I specifically want to listen to reasons as to why a physical assault is considered graver than a verbal one.

Calling someone a (vicious) name may be considered verbal assault but I can't believe that it's a crime. To physically assault someone is a crime. (A threat is a crime, but calling smeone a name, by itself, is not a threat.)

[stahta01]

Calling someone a (vicious) name may be considered verbal assault but I can't believe that it's a crime. To physically assault someone is a crime. (A threat is a crime, but calling smeone a name, by itself, is not a threat.)

You are really ignorant of many things.

Assault and Battery are both crimes in most of the states in the USA!!
Assault means verbal assault!

Tim S.

[Alpo]

You are really ignorant of many things.

Assault and Battery are both crimes in most of the states in the USA!!
Assault means verbal assault!

Tim S.

To be fair, he was responding to Mario, who has said that he considers verbal abuse to be interchangeable with verbal assault. I'm sure he was just arguing within the bounds of the debate.

For instance if I said,

1. All elephants are pink.
2. Lucy is an elephant.
Therefor Lucy is pink.

Within the bounds of the syllogism the conclusion is correct. However in reality all elephants can not be defined as pink, so the conclusion is incorrect. A conversation were a term has been redefined can be like this. You come to a conclusion that is correct using special logic (verbal assault is verbal abuse), whereas in reality it doesn't stack up. Just saying.

[Elkvis]

Assault means verbal assault!

Not always. Even if I say nothing, yet come at you with a knife, I'm assaulting you, even if I haven't yet made any physical contact.

[Will1]

You are really ignorant of many things.

Assault and Battery are both crimes in most of the states in the USA!!
Assault means verbal assault!

Tim S.

There can be no such criminal thing as "Verbal assault" under the First Amendment to our Constitation. Is "verbal assault" defined as criminal in the state where you live? "Hate speech" is the same as "verbal assault" and it to is protected by the First Amendment." I would like to see a criminal statute that defines "verbal assault" as a crime, please post it!

As I said in my previous post, the only form of speech that is defined as a crime is a "Threat" or are you defining "verbal assault" as a threat? If so, it must be a "Threat" in order to be a crime. A slander isn't even a crime, but if you slander someone, you can be sued in civil court, not tried in criminal court.

Webster's definition of "assault":
an unlawful threat or attempt to harm another physically.

[whiteflags]

There can be no such criminal thing as "Verbal assault" under the First Amendment to our Constitation (sic).

The first amendment protects speech from government censorship or punishment from feds or state police. The degree to which speech is tolerated in our society is up to the people in it. Indeed, it is reasonable to believe that because the first amendment exists, people are free to express whatever opinions they wish in public, but it does not legalize your right to a podium or an audience. People do not have to listen to or tolerate what you have to say.

Also, a question to the members, what is wrong with defining verbal assault as making threats?

[Alpo]

The first amendment protects speech from government censorship or punishment from feds or state police. The degree to which speech is tolerated in our society is up to the people in it. Indeed, it is reasonable to believe that because the first amendment exists, people are free to express whatever opinions they wish in public, but it does not legalize your right to a podium or an audience. People do not have to listen to or tolerate what you have to say.

Also, a question to the members, what is wrong with defining verbal assault as making threats?

Nothing is wrong with it to me, so long as while people are talking about something else they use "verbal abuse" or one of the other phrases. Otherwise it's too easy to get confused. Say I'm responding to person X who is using the insult definition, then person Y comes along and asks why I'm not against threats?

As to people not having a right to a podium/ audience, I agree. Everyone should have the opportunity to do anything they want (excluding things that violate other people's rights), but the outcome of success is not guaranteed.

However if a person were to get an audience being a bigot, I wouldn't believe it to be the governments right to shut them down. Usually those sorts of things take care of themselves though, companies don't like being seen to support racism (or those types of things). Look at Opie and Anthony.

As for this belief that an insult makes a person not responsible for their actions, I can't understand it or believe it. There are several instances I can think of where it would be considered a horrible thing for people to be excused for their actions just because they were offended (school shootings, ect).

Edit: Ack, last paragraph wasn't at you WhiteFlags, I realize we already went over it. I was just reiterating the original argument with the things I had thought of in the past days.