No comment? No condemnation?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Back in March of 2016 Biden fantasized about being back in High School with Trump so that he could "take [Trump] behind the gym and beat the hell out of him." A year later Biden continued with the theme remarking that he thought that Trump was like "the bully that used to make fun when I was a kid that I stutter, and I’d smack him in the mouth."

I entirely agree that it was highly inappropriate language but it is hardly commensurate with DiGenova's remark "That guy is a Class A moron. He should be drawn and quartered, taken out at dawn and shot".

Furthermore Biden was speaking of what he would do in his fantasy. He was not offering those actions to a wider audience.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Even apart from the clear (to many) hyperbolic rhetoric, I did not take Joltin' Joe's remarks as invitations to "murder," but as suggesting he should have been legally executed.

In his remark DiGenova made no reference to any due process of law. Of course taking people out and shooting them is something we generally associate with gang violence or the actions of totalitarian regimes. For example the popular image of the Gestapo or KGB breaking down the door at 3.a.m.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You really should stop chopping up paragraphs. They form an entire argument, not sound-bites.

I respond to the points you make. That is what an exchange of opinions entails.

In an eventual reply to my question regarding free speech being a universal right, you wrote at post #66: “Streicher is a complicated matter, as he and his newspaper were not entirely independent of the Nazi machine. This muddies the water about whether his speech was his own, or whether he was acting as a mouthpiece for Nazi's.

But to humor you. I'll be blunt. It is a universal right.”

Universal as in the context of a universal right means “applicable everywhere or in all cases; general”; hence the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those rights apply everywhere in every circumstance – that they are not always followed or permitted universally is an entirely different matter.

Hence Streicher is not a “complicated matter” when it comes to the universal right to free speech. Irrespective of his connections to the Nazi Party, by your own statement he [as everyone else] was/is entitled to that universal right.

Whether he was acting as quasi-official part of the Nazi party DOES change his legal liability.(BTW I never said he was always acting under his universal right, that is a claim you made up on the spot.)

You stated quite clearly that “to humor you. I'll be blunt. It is a universal right”. You continued “ if Streicher was completely independent and separate from the Nazi party, his speech was protected, and he should not have been imprisoned, let alone hung for his speech.” Which, as I pointed out is irrelevant to his exercising his universal right.

However you seem to consider that this universal right can, and should be, restricted or curtailed under certain conditions and cited Streicher’s connection to the Nazi machine as such. I would note that offering that constraint would no longer render free speech a strictly universal right. Setting such limitations could also prevent someone speaking out and condemning the actions of a group to which they belonged.

If he was working as an official/semi-official cog of the governmental machine that was exterminating Jews, then it's no longer an issue of his free speech (as the speech isn't necessarily his). This is why the independence matters.

Mr DiGenova was working in an “official” capacity for Mr Trump. Using your own definitions and reasoning it follows that Mr DiGenova should not have said what he did.

I did not "absolve" him of anything.

I never wrote that you did. I asked a question “Are you absolving Streicher from the violence directed against German Jews in the early 1930s?"

I placed the ultimate responsibility on the person perpetrating the act.

I then gave a fictitious scenario regarding an inflammatory speech against the residents of a particular house – I did contextualise that speech. I simply wrote, “However, if someone makes an inflammatory speech against the residents of house number 1354 and members of their audience then go and smash up that house and terrorise its residents are you alleging that the speaker who made those inflammatory comments is absolved entirely of any responsibility?"

That situation was given no specific context. Hence the speech could have taken place anywhere, e.g. a public bar, a pool hall, a private gathering, or among a group of individuals loitering on a street corner.

I therefore ask again, if someone employs inflammatory language [written or spoken] against an individual or individuals and some of their audience/readership then go out and act on those words, is the speaker exonerated?

You appear to consider that there are mitigating circumstances since you have stated that “ultimate responsibility on the person perpetrating the act”. By that remark you are attempting to excuse those individuals whose incendiary language has led to violence against innocent victims.

I disagree with your conclusion.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

FAO Esther, Gondwanaland and any others who may be labouring under the misapprehension that my reference to the name Joseph pertained to the name, and the name only.

My observation was that DiGenova's fascist remark echoed the sort of language employed by another fascist Joe, namely Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister for the Nazi Party.

I trust this clarifies my comment for them.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It is perhaps an uncommon application of the rule, but an appropriate one. If some nutjob decides to go out and kill someone because he heard DiGenova make a joke then it's the nutjob who should be held accountable and not DiGenova who, presumably, made his remark with the reasonable expectation that nobody would take him literally.

I do not think that the above scenario is quite what William of Ockham had in mind!

[Esther]

FAO Esther, Gondwanaland and any others who may be labouring under the misapprehension that my reference to the name Joseph pertained to the name, and the name only.

My observation was that DiGenova's fascist remark echoed the sort of language employed by another fascist Joe, namely Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister for the Nazi Party.

I trust this clarifies my comment for them.

H_A thanks for trying to clarify. I think you are missing my point.

You subjectively decide who is a fascist.
If that person happens to be named Joseph, you link him to Goebbels.

Joseph is a perfectly decent human being. Not a fascist.
But because you think something he says is "fascist" you then link him to Goebbels. Destroying the good name of perfectly innocent Joseph.
do you get it now?

[CivilDiscourse]

I respond to the points you make. That is what an exchange of opinions entails.

In an eventual reply to my question regarding free speech being a universal right, you wrote at post #66: “Streicher is a complicated matter, as he and his newspaper were not entirely independent of the Nazi machine. This muddies the water about whether his speech was his own, or whether he was acting as a mouthpiece for Nazi's.

But to humor you. I'll be blunt. It is a universal right.”

Universal as in the context of a universal right means “applicable everywhere or in all cases; general”; hence the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those rights apply everywhere in every circumstance – that they are not always followed or permitted universally is an entirely different matter.

Hence Streicher is not a “complicated matter” when it comes to the universal right to free speech. Irrespective of his connections to the Nazi Party, by your own statement he [as everyone else] was/is entitled to that universal right.


You stated quite clearly that “to humor you. I'll be blunt. It is a universal right”. You continued “ if Streicher was completely independent and separate from the Nazi party, his speech was protected, and he should not have been imprisoned, let alone hung for his speech.” Which, as I pointed out is irrelevant to his exercising his universal right.

However you seem to consider that this universal right can, and should be, restricted or curtailed under certain conditions and cited Streicher’s connection to the Nazi machine as such. I would note that offering that constraint would no longer render free speech a strictly universal right. Setting such limitations could also prevent someone speaking out and condemning the actions of a group to which they belonged.

Mr DiGenova was working in an “official” capacity for Mr Trump. Using your own definitions and reasoning it follows that Mr DiGenova should not have said what he did.

I never wrote that you did. I asked a question “Are you absolving Streicher from the violence directed against German Jews in the early 1930s?"

I then gave a fictitious scenario regarding an inflammatory speech against the residents of a particular house – I did contextualise that speech. I simply wrote, “However, if someone makes an inflammatory speech against the residents of house number 1354 and members of their audience then go and smash up that house and terrorise its residents are you alleging that the speaker who made those inflammatory comments is absolved entirely of any responsibility?"

That situation was given no specific context. Hence the speech could have taken place anywhere, e.g. a public bar, a pool hall, a private gathering, or among a group of individuals loitering on a street corner.

I therefore ask again, if someone employs inflammatory language [written or spoken] against an individual or individuals and some of their audience/readership then go out and act on those words, is the speaker exonerated?

You appear to consider that there are mitigating circumstances since you have stated that “ultimate responsibility on the person perpetrating the act”. By that remark you are attempting to excuse those individuals whose incendiary language has led to violence against innocent victims.

I disagree with your conclusion.

I'll break it down for you, and why whether he was in an official capacity matters.

Take a president's/prime-ministers press secretary. They are not standing at the podium giving their own opinion on the matters of the day. They are standing at the podium giving the administrations official stance. The opinions and speech are not their own. If the administration is engaged in genocide, and the press secretary is knowingly lying about, or engaging in the rhetoric about the genocide, they are legally culpable for that. They are providing an official mouthpiece to the administration and are an integral part of the criminal activity being done.

Streicher is complicated because it seems murky about what role he and his newspaper held. If his paper was, like the NYT to the democrats (just a sycophantic supporter) then his speech is protected, as it is his speech. If, on the other hand, it was closer to Air America, and was official propaganda, then it's not because it's then about his active knowing role in the criminal behavior.

What do I mean by universal? It applies to everyone, and it applies to all topics. I make very few exceptions to that universal rule. Those exceptions revolve around time and place immediate safety. (I.E. The classic "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" where historically, that shouting of fire can cause an immediate rush to the door causing deaths by crushing as people try to get to safety.) Note though that time and place immediate safety is not about the idea. Yelling "We should kill Jews" to an angry, tense mob outside of a synagogue could lead the mob to immediately cause havoc. Printing a column in a news paper saying the exact same thing, however, is not liable to cause that same immediate reaction, and is therefore not an immediate safety issue.

What legal responsibility does a speaker have based on the actions of others? Barring the immediate time/place exceptions noted above. None. Are they morally responsible? Yes. But moral culpability is not legal. Let's go back to your example. The lawyer said that. The next day, someone murders Krebs. Did the lawyer cause him to do that? Did the bubble of online angry content the guy surround himself with cause him to do that? The lawyer's comments didn't occur in a vacuum, so can you actually point to the lawyer and say "it was his comment that caused it" as opposed to the angry voices out there? Go back to the John Hodgkinson who shot up the congressional baseball practice. No public official said that people should kill congressmen, but at the same time there was alot of general angry rhetoric aimed at republicans. Who has the blood on their hands for that politically motivated shooter?

As for condemnation? Condemn all you want.

[shunyadragon]

Okay, Mr. DiGenova did not do that. Unless he says otherwise, we can presume that he made his remarks with the reasonable expectation that nobody would take him literally.

DiGenova has at present stated that his comments were not to be taken literally, retracted nor modified his comments.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You subjectively decide who is a fascist.

I cited DiGenova's own words. He condemned himself.

If that person happens to be named Joseph, you link him to Goebbels.

Given DiGenova's role as Trump's Campaign Lawyer - i.e. an official in Trump's group, the reference was quite apt. Goebbels was likewise a [high-ranking] official in the Nazi Party.

Joseph is a perfectly decent human being. Not a fascist.

Then he might do well to stop using the language of fascism. Advocating the deaths of one's political opponents carries all the trademarks of a fascist.

I would also add that given the list of individuals who have received death threats from Trump supporters because those individuals, or their family members, have dared to criticise Trump, it is clear that Cesar Sayoc was not a "one off" or "lone wolf".

[Mountain Man]

DiGenova has at present stated that his comments were not to be taken literally, retracted nor modified his comments.

And why should he when no reasonable person would take what he said as anything other than hyperbole?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'll break it down for you, and why whether he was in an official capacity matters.

DiGenova is/was Trump's campaign lawyer. Do you a point?

Streicher is complicated because it seems murky about what role he and his newspaper held. If his paper was, like the NYT to the democrats (just a sycophantic supporter) then his speech is protected, as it is his speech. If, on the other hand, it was closer to Air America, and was official propaganda, then it's not because it's then about his active knowing role in the criminal behavior.

I recommend you read up on Julius Streicher and then make an informed comment.

What do I mean by universal? It applies to everyone, and it applies to all topics. I make very few exceptions to that universal rule.

If it is a "universal rule" [as you have previously stated] you cannot make exceptions to that rule.

Printing a column in a news paper saying the exact same thing, however, is not liable to cause that same immediate reaction, and is therefore not an immediate safety issue.

Oh dear, you have inadvertently excused Streicher from the Holocaust.

During the 1920s as a member of the Party he was regularly called upon to make speeches but despite his activity as a speaker, journalist, and politician, he was not a particularly influential Nazi after 1925. However, he was loathed by others in the Party and in 1940 [after the outbreak of WW2] a tribunal investigating Streicher's infamous behaviours and illegal actions found him "unfit for human leadership". His future survival therefore rested solely with Hitler, who acknowledged Streicher's friendship and his usefulness in the past. However, Hitler decided to remove him from office and Streicher retired to Pleikershof, his country estate outside Nuremberg. However, he continued to publish Der Stürmer. Therefore for the rest of the war and all the horrors of the Final Solution and the murder of some eleven million innocent souls, Streicher was under a form of house arrest in the Bavarian countryside. He took no part in any military activity or in the atrocities.

What legal responsibility does a speaker have based on the actions of others?

I never mentioned any legal responsibility you have introduced that topic.

Barring the immediate time/place exceptions noted above. None. Are they morally responsible?

Thank you for agreeing with me that the speaker/writer bears some moral responsibility for the actions taken by others in response to the speaker/writer's words.

We appear to have gone full circle and have returned to my earlier comment that with words come consequences.

[Esther]

I cited DiGenova's own words. He condemned himself.

Given DiGenova's role as Trump's Campaign Lawyer - i.e. an official in Trump's group, the reference was quite apt. Goebbels was likewise a [high-ranking] official in the Nazi Party.

Now you are associating Trump's "group" with the Nazi Party. Your associations are obviously running riot and are your own subjective opinions.
This is not even hyperbole. Neither President Trump nor any member of his group nor DiGenova specifically have ever done anything close to resembling the Nazi party's and Goebbels' acts of insane wickedness. For you to make any such associations is also wicked.

Then he might do well to stop using the language of fascism. Advocating the deaths of one's political opponents carries all the trademarks of a fascist.

In today's rush to hysterically cry "hate speech" many an innocent victim is bound to fall prey to your subjective and skew opinions.

I would also add that given the list of individuals who have received death threats from Trump supporters because those individuals, or their family members, have dared to criticise Trump, it is clear that Cesar Sayoc was not a "one off" or "lone wolf".

Okay I will add a response to this too. The lone wolf is fully responsible for his lone actions.

[rogue06]

I entirely agree that it was highly inappropriate language but it is hardly commensurate with DiGenova's remark "That guy is a Class A moron. He should be drawn and quartered, taken out at dawn and shot".

Furthermore Biden was speaking of what he would do in his fantasy. He was not offering those actions to a wider audience.

Did I say that it was? That was not what you asked for.

You asked me for examples of where Biden "talked about a desire to physically assault [political opponents] upon occasion" and now you seek to move the goalposts after you got them.

[CivilDiscourse]

DiGenova is/was Trump's campaign lawyer. Do you a point?

I recommend you read up on Julius Streicher and then make an informed comment.

If it is a "universal rule" [as you have previously stated] you cannot make exceptions to that rule.

Oh dear, you have inadvertently excused Streicher from the Holocaust.

During the 1920s as a member of the Party he was regularly called upon to make speeches but despite his activity as a speaker, journalist, and politician, he was not a particularly influential Nazi after 1925. However, he was loathed by others in the Party and in 1940 [after the outbreak of WW2] a tribunal investigating Streicher's infamous behaviours and illegal actions found him "unfit for human leadership". His future survival therefore rested solely with Hitler, who acknowledged Streicher's friendship and his usefulness in the past. However, Hitler decided to remove him from office and Streicher retired to Pleikershof, his country estate outside Nuremberg. However, he continued to publish Der Stürmer. Therefore for the rest of the war and all the horrors of the Final Solution and the murder of some eleven million innocent souls, Streicher was under a form of house arrest in the Bavarian countryside. He took no part in any military activity or in the atrocities.

I never mentioned any legal responsibility you have introduced that topic.

Thank you for agreeing with me that the speaker/writer bears some moral responsibility for the actions taken by others in response to the speaker/writer's words.

We appear to have gone full circle and have returned to my earlier comment that with words come consequences.

You chopped up my comments so much that you ignore half the points used to support what I say, then argue about points addressed in the stuff you actually chopped out.

I've wasted enough words on you to continue playing your pedantic games. I explained my position clearly and will leave you with the final word.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Now you are associating Trump's "group" with the Nazi Party.

If the hat fits, they are free to wear it.

I made a comparison [a likening; illustration by similitude] not an association [connection or combination] between two individuals who share the same first name, who employ fascist language, and who both held/hold official positions in two various Parties/groups.

Okay I will add a response to this too. The lone wolf is fully responsible for his lone actions.

You do not appear able to comprehend what I wrote. I, in fact, noted that "it is clear that Cesar Sayoc was not a "one off" or "lone wolf"." [my emphasis] Sayoc is perhaps one of the most well known such individuals who have made death threats against individuals [or their family members] who have criticised Trump. However, he is clearly not the only individual to do so.