Verbal Assaults Can Be Just As Awful As Physical Assaults

[MainerMikeBrown]

In our society, it's considered unacceptable to physically assault another, and with good reason.

However, it's often considered "Freedom Of Speech" in our society when a person verbally assaults another by saying something racist and hateful.

I'm all for freedoms to express yourself. However, verbal assaults can be just as upsetting to the victim as getting punched in the mouth because of the color of a person's skin. Hence, verbal assaults against a another because of their race is a violation of the victim's rights.

Nobody has the right to pummel another (unless it's self-defense, of course) with fists. Therefore, nobody has the right to assault another verbally for no good reason.

 

[Joe the meek]

So someone has a right to verbally assault someone else if they have good reason?

 

[Accountable]

So verbal assaults against a another NOT because of their race is NOT a violation of the victim's rights?
Which rights are we talking about here, anyway?

 

[MainerMikeBrown]

The only time a verbal assault on another is OK is if someone is defending themselves verbally.

Say someone is verbally assaulting you and you fire back with some choice words instead of merely putting up with it. That's an example of what I mean.

 

[JuggsBunny]

What if you are verbally nice and someone keeps bothering the shit out of you???

Is it okay to tell them off after you've tried to be nice about it??? How about when someone is whining about the same old shit all the time??? Is there are certain point when you can tell them to shut it???

 

[dkwrtw]

I have to disagree with this, I'd much rather have hurt feelings than a broken jaw, sticks and stones and all that.

 

[MainerMikeBrown]

I'd rather have hurt feelings than a broken jaw as well. However, there are others who find verbal abuse to be just as emotionally damaging as physical abuse. And the fact is that verbal abuse is just as immoral.

 

[Accountable]

What if you are verbally nice and someone keeps bothering the shit out of you???

Is it okay to tell them off after you've tried to be nice about it??? How about when someone is whining about the same old shit all the time??? Is there are certain point when you can tell them to shut it???

NO! Now shut up and stop your whining! :jk

 

[Joe the meek]

The only time a verbal assault on another is OK is if someone is defending themselves verbally.

Exactly how does one "defend" themselves verbally? Either they get an ear full or they don't. Anything they say is after the fact.

 

[Dana]

Hate crimes are not a freedom of speech in my mind...
Telling someone they are a douchewad because they act like a moron, regardless of color is freedom of speech

 

[MainerMikeBrown]

All this freedom of speech is well and good, but when will we draw the line in America at some point?

I say the right for a person being able to live his or her life without having to hear verbal assaults are more important than the "right" for some racist to claim that somehow entire races of people are bad people.

You don't hate an entire race! And if you do, then your the one who is being unfair, to say the least.

 

[Accountable]

Hate crimes are not a freedom of speech in my mind...

Calling same act a crime in one instance and a hate crime in another instance is thought-police crap. Let's hold off on that stuff until we can have psychic juries. A guy getting whacked over the head because of his wallet doesn't hurt any less than the same guy getting whacked over the head because of his skin.

All this freedom of speech is well and good, but when will we draw the line in America at some point?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
~ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

I say the right for a person being able to live his or her life without having to hear verbal assaults are more important than the "right" for some racist to claim that somehow entire races of people are bad people.

I could not disagree more.

 

[MainerMikeBrown]

If your the type of person who is very sensitive, then verbal assaults are rather upsetting. And plenty of people out there are sensitive and find verbal assaults to be traumatic. Those who aren't as upset when being verbally assaulted and who also disagree with me on this must realize this. And verbal assaults can lead to physical violence. Hence, verbal assaults are no good and are a violation of the rights of good people who are just trying to live their lives.

 

[Accountable]

If your the type of person who is very sensitive, then verbal assaults are rather upsetting. And plenty of people out there are sensitive and find verbal assaults to be traumatic. Those who aren't as upset when being verbally assaulted and who also disagree with me on this must realize this. And verbal assaults can lead to physical violence. Hence, verbal assaults are no good and are a violation of the rights of good people who are just trying to live their lives.

I'm truly cognizant that you are very sensitive and find hearing things you'd rather not hear upsetting, but I will not allow my security from verbal assault override your liberty to say what you wish to say, even though reading it sends my blood pressure to new limits. Liberty is too important to allow it to be eroded over TRIVIA.

 

[MainerMikeBrown]

It's OK to live your life the way you want as long as your not harming others.

The same is true with expressing your opinions. A lot of good people have their rights violated by others who wish intend to harm others with hateful words. And since it's against the laws of this nation to violate others rights, such as by bashing others verbally, then I say it's unacceptable to allow verbal assaults. It's violating the rights of good people who get verbally assaulted, after all.

 

[Joe the meek]

It's OK to live your life the way you want as long as your not harming others.

The same is true with expressing your opinions. A lot of good people have their rights violated by others who wish intend to harm others with hateful words. And since it's against the laws of this nation to violate others rights, such as by bashing others verbally, then I say it's unacceptable to allow verbal assaults. It's violating the rights of good people who get verbally assaulted, after all.

So is there a difference between someone saying "go fuck yourself you little shit head pansy ass whiner motherfucker" as to compared to "you're and idiot, please shut up"?

Please keep in mind, the above if for an example only

 

[MainerMikeBrown]

Every good person has the right to go about their lives without having to worry about dealing with those who've decided that it's somehow OK to hate entire races of people even though most members of those races are people they've never even met before.

 

[Accountable]

Every good person has the right to go about their lives without having to worry about dealing with those who've decided that it's somehow OK to hate entire races of people even though most members of those races are people they've never even met before.

A natural right is something you can do without obligating others to contribute or cooperate. You have it naturally and it costs nothing. Even if a tyrannical gov't makes the act illegal, you can still do it. Speech is such a right.
You don't have a right to someone else's ceasing a behavior. You simply don't. What you are asking for is more accurately described as a type of security. You want to be secure from the offensive speech of others. Sorry, I won't give up my liberty to speak so that you can have your security. If you are willing to make such a sacrifice, you deserve neither the liberty nor the security, according to Benjamin Franklyn. I agree with him.

 

[BornReady]

I don't think freedom of speech means the right to verbally assault someone. Freedom of speech means the right to present your views whatever they may be to those who want to listen. If you can get enough people to listen then politicians will have to listen too. The government should not be allowed to suppress this freedom. But there should also be freedom to listen. If I don't want to listen to some bigot spouting off hatred then I shouldn't have to. The foul mouthed bigot on the subway in England comes to mind.

Getting punched hurts more when it happens but it will heal. Some words can go on hurting for a long time. Especially when those words are said to a child.

 

[Accountable]

I don't think freedom of speech means the right to verbally assault someone.

So then verbal assault should be illegal? A punishable offense? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm interested in your answer.

Freedom of speech means the right to present your views whatever they may be to those who want to listen. If you can get enough people to listen then politicians will have to listen too.

Okay, let's examine that. The first sentence clearly implies that you should only be allowed to speak to someone if that person is FIRST willing to listen to you. How are you to "get" people to listen, if you aren't allowed to speak? Wouldn't trying to convince them to listen violate their right not to listen to you? How is that not then verbal assault? Too extreme? Then how many chances should you be allowed to convince someone to listen to you before they can cry foul and have you arrested?
And politicians should have to listen to you? Even if they don't want to? Isn't that stripping them of their right not to listen?
Sounds pretty silly when you lay it out, doesn't it?

The government should not be allowed to suppress this freedom. But there should also be freedom to listen. If I don't want to listen to some bigot spouting off hatred then I shouldn't have to. The foul mouthed bigot on the subway in England comes to mind.

This part is so full of contradictions it's ridiculous, unless you are not talking about legality and only talking about behavior and etiquette. If you're talking about etiquette, your wish is granted. You already have the freedom to leave someone who is saying something you don't want to listen to. If the other person pursues you and continues talking. We already have harassment laws in place to take care of that. Job done.

If you're talking about enacting new law, it is impossible to create this new "right not to hear" and not suppress freedom of speech. you start advocating for suppression of rights, even a little bit in the right circumstances, consider what a person with motivations different from yours might do with such suppression.