Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Inner Revolution (1992).

Here.

Here.

Suppose a person utters words which have as their unhappy effects violence directed at him by his angry audience, counterviolence by his friends and protectors, and escalation into a riotous breach of the peace. This is still another way of causing harm by words. Should the speaker be punished? In almost every conceivable case, the answer should be No. There is a sense, of course, in which the speaker did not start the physical violence. He used only words, and while words can sting and infuriate, they are not instruments of violence in the same sense that fists, knives, guns, and clubs are. If the law suppresses public speech, either by withholding permits in advance or punishing afterwards, simply on the ground that the expressed views are so unpopular that some auditors can be expected to start fighting, then the law punishes some for the criminal proclivities of others. "A man does not become a criminal because someone else assaults him . . . ," writes Zechariah Chafee. Moreover, he continues, on any such theory, "a small number of intolerant men . . . can prevent any kind of meeting . . . A gathering which expressed the sentiment of a majority of law-abiding citizens would become illegal because a small gang of hoodlums threatened to invade the hall." When violent response to speech threatens, the obvious remedy is not suppression, but rather increased police protection.

(Joel Feinberg, "Limits to the Free Expression of Opinion," in Philosophy of Law, ed. Joel Feinberg and Hyman Gross [Encino, CA, and Belmont, CA: Dickenson Publishing Company, 1975], 135-51, at 144 [italics and ellipses in original; endnote omitted])

See here.

I just finished the Dec. 19 editorial “Memo to Dems.” My succinct comment is: baloney.

We have a man in the White House who: Worked with an enemy government to get elected, used campaign contributions to pay off his mistresses, has told over 5,000 lies since he was inaugurated, plays golf several weekends, belittles and makes fun of any one he doesn’t like, puts children in cages, sides with the man who murdered a journalist . . . I could go on and on.

The point is, there is a criminal and perhaps a sociopath in office. Before we can build, we need to remove the stench.

MARILYN MULVIHILL

Ohio Township

I won an election, said to be one of the greatest of all time, based on getting out of endless & costly foreign wars & also based on Strong Borders which will keep our Country safe. We fight for the borders of other countries, but we won’t fight for the borders of our own!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 22, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Here.

Here.