In your response to silentgong, you said that you cannot see punishing speech for anything less than inciting violence; my question is simple: does that refer specifically to legal punishment from the state, or do you include social repercussions in that? As a for instance, I think it's rational to exclude racists from groups that I have authority in. I can see this being viewed as "punishing" their hatred of those not like them. I am just wondering if you see it that way, or not.
I was afraid somebody was going to pin me down on this point. I was referring to legal consequences not other societal or cultural methods of public censure.
The answer is sometimes. Take people like a certain White House page from the Clinton Administration. She became instantly famous, infamous which amounts to the same thing, for doing something usually done in private in a public space, with a famous man to which she was not married. Big scandal and impeachment trial in the Senate which he barely got off.
Anyway, she is famous overnight and now she is a joke to people she doesn’t know. By all accounts, she is an intelligent and articulate individual and I wish her well.
Now two decades later everybody is connected by social media with video and t can happen to anyone. A choppy skewed picture and a flash and an instant of someone’s life is captured and sent to thousands or at least seen by that many. Maybe more. Donald J. Trump has 66 Million followers on Twitter plus his tweets are a staple of all the late-night talk shows. That’s clout.
I’m impressed. Hmmm. How would he handle a military push into Hong Kong and Taiwan? The Chinese did it in 1950 to Tibet. They make the same argument which is that these were and still are part of the Chinese Empire.
Is “Mr. funny hair, overweight, weird kids and cold wife rich guy” ready to go to war with China if they made such a land grab?
They did it in 1950 and Truman sent the Seventh Fleet.