There are consequences to free expression, not limits...
If by
consequences you mean
violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.
False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of
violence in your post as meaning
physical force. Never say never...
1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.
Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the
likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.
Threats are a violation of someone's rights, so it wouldn't be applicable to my scenario where violence is initiated in response to expression, as freedom of expression does not include a threat. As for mental abuse, if someone is mentally abusing you, they are most likely physically abusing you as well, otherwise you would be free to remove yourself from the situation. If you're not free to leave of your own volition, I can see where the initiation of force in your own defense is warranted. If you are free to leave and do not, that does not make it OK to initiate violence, because you have chosen not to take the least destructive path. I cannot think of a situation where the initiation of physical violence is an appropriate response to someone who is being only mentally abused. (Maybe you have a scenario in mind that might change my mind?) Also, what constitutes mental abuse is in the mind of the sufferer. If you called me an idiot on this board for my views, I could be sensitive enough that it would cause me legitimate mental distress. That's hardly any fault of your own, but the fact that the threshold can vary so greatly person-to-person does not place liability on someone who expresses an opinion, even if it's offensive. But we're also not talking about these situations. (I take your point thought about never saying never. I was imprecise.)
The crux of this issue is how people are likely to react to someone else's expression, and really, that is irrelevant to me. If we know jihadi's kill people cuz they're mad at the depiction of their prophet, that never makes it OK when they kill people. The killers are wrong, every time, no matter how likely it is that they react in an unacceptable manner to someone else's expression. Expression
can be a liability in a semantic sense only, not a legitimate sense that makes victim-blaming OK.
Well, he shouldn't have said that because it was likely to provoke a reaction sounds an awful lot like
well, she shouldn't have worn that because it was likely to provoke someone to rape her. No. The person committing the crime is wrong every time.
For the designation of abuse, it requires a recurrence of assaults. Insulting a person doesn't make for an abuse, it's merely an assault. However, repetitively assaulting a person constitutes abuse. Mental distress is not the damage caused by abuse, the damage caused by mental abuse is depression, retardation of social skills, anxiety, depreciation of self-worth, and many more. People can get over mental distress by shifting their concentration, the damage caused by abuse can be permanent...
It may be irrelevant to you, but it's not irrelevant. jihadists kill because they're engaged in a religious war. It's not OK for them to kill because of a picture of their prophet, but it's foolish to ignore the risks associated with painting a target on yourself when dealing with extremists. I'm not blaming the victim, nor have I said they are ever to blame.
People need to accept the reality that risk isn't black and white. "
well, she shouldn't have worn that because it was likely to provoke someone to rape her." By choosing to deviate from the standard of society (standing out of the group of normality) she has
absolutely increased her risk of being raped, even though that rape is not her fault, she was spotted by a
predatory creature. It can be observed all around us in nature, predators will act predatory. My point isn't to place blame it's to assess the risks associated with our actions and see that certain actions increase the
risk of adverse reaction.
If I choose to walk in a pit of snakes, I should accept the risk that I might be bitten by a snake. It's not my right
not to be bitten, and the world doesn't owe it to me that I won't be. Refusing to acknowledge the risks of my actions will increase the probability that I won't experience my desired outcome.
I'm not saying not to express yourself for fear of retaliation either. I'm actually saying the contrary, protecting yourself is fundamental in nature. Even though we may live in civilization, human nature is inescapable, and is equally primal compared with animal nature... Don't walk through a snake pit with nothing but shorts and sandals...
