Fire: Violence must never be a response to speech

9 pointsposted 11 hours ago
by SilverElfin
(thefire.org)

5 Comments

SilverElfin

11 hours ago

I tried capitalizing FIRE but I think HN automatically removes capitalization of acronyms in titles. The “Fire” here is actually Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). They’re basically the new ACLU and probably the most prominent nonprofit fighting for free speech:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Individual_Righ...

tanelpoder

10 hours ago

I think if you click "edit" after submitting and manually edit the word to caps, it will be accepted then.

bediger4000

10 hours ago

Sure, even Bluesky posters agree with that. But what should be a response to genuinely transgressive speech? What to do about genuinely ignorant speech? Should we sit politely and engage with planar planetary physics advocacy? Should we quietly demur to advocacy of racial discrimination? How about blasphemy?

AnimalMuppet

10 hours ago

What should be the response to genuinely transgressive speech? What the title said. Ditto all the other examples you gave.

You don't beat up somebody for being stupid. You don't kill somebody for advocating planar planetary physics. You don't beat up somebody even for advocating racial discrimination. (You don't "quietly demur", either. You respond with forceful denunciation and moral condemnation.)

In this country, you don't beat up or kill someone for blasphemy. And in any country, you don't if you're a Christian. A Christian's orders are to love their enemies, do good to those who hate them, and pray for those that persecute them. I don't see "kill" anywhere in that.

sunscream89

10 hours ago

Thoughts feelings and beliefs are never enough to justify violence or murder. Truth and law before power (of one Man over another) however may be a different matter.