I actually got that, and that’s why I mentioned common sense. Absolute freedom of speech cannot exisit in a world within most legal frameworks because people cannot be trusted to not act on violent rhetoric. ( January 6’s attack on the US capitol is a prime example of the consequences of that).
But people act violently without it, I don’t think the rhetoric is a necessary precursor. Furthermore, practicality is not what defines freedom of speech.
I actually got that, and that’s why I mentioned common sense. Absolute freedom of speech cannot exisit in a world within most legal frameworks because people cannot be trusted to not act on violent rhetoric. ( January 6’s attack on the US capitol is a prime example of the consequences of that).
But people act violently without it, I don’t think the rhetoric is a necessary precursor. Furthermore, practicality is not what defines freedom of speech.
Sure people act violently, it’s in our nature, but when a “revered” figure calls for violence, it’s more than likely many more people will act on it.
Probably