Perchance, have any of you seen this?
This is a gif of Richard Spencer (apparent white nationalist) getting punched in the face by someone who does not agree with his politicals or his morals. Most of the people I have come into contact with have agreed, this man is a "neo-nazi" (despite his own claims that he is no such person). And since this incident, the internet has been going wild with making videos and pictures and gifs (oh my!), and there have been multiple instances of people debating the ethics and morals of what happened. People say things like "This is ethical and right. I'm proud of him for punching that scum." And people have said things like "That's not ethical. You don't just go around assaulting people."
This is not Amercian. This is not ethical.
Going around assaulting people is not how you solve issues. You protest louder. You debate. You simply do not listen to him. You get more people on your side than his. You fight for what you believe in without using brunt force. Brunt force does not change people's minds. Brunt force does nothing but brings about more violence.
Despite the fact that Spencer was not being violent when he was assaulted. He was protesting. He was talking to a reporter and peacefully protesting with some people who agreed with his ideals and morals. He was not burning anyone at the stake. He was not harming anyone physically. He was not directly verbalizing any threats to anyone. Richard was simply telling the person taping him what it was he believed. A perfectly okay thing to do under our Constitution. What did he do to deserve such an attack then? Believe in a hating ideology? Alright. Fair. I'm not justifying his beliefs. In fact, his beliefs actually make me nauseous. But the thing is, you should not respond to a hating ideology with more hate. In this instance, I feel the need to take from Dr. Martian Luther King Junior:
Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.
Again, you cannot solve your disagreements by just going up and assaulting people. I don't think it is moral to run up to anyone who is just talking and punch them. That is violent. That is unnecessary. That does no one any good. Richard did not change his ideology simply because he got punched in the face. People do not work that way. Americans do not work that way.
This is not Constitutional either. The first Amendment claims that we each have a freedom of speech. I'm utilizing that right now actually. If you reply to this article, you will also be utilizing that freedom. Freedom of speech does not mean in the fine print *you have the freedom to say anything that aligns with my personal ideas and morals.* Freedom of speech means freedom of speech.
To me, it seems decidedly unAmerican to tamper with anyone's freedom of speech. Especially through assault. You don't have to agree with Richard. I don't. But not agreeing with someone does not give me the right to punch them in the face.
Even if they are a "neo-nazi." I drew a line. I will not act in violence when I do not agree with you. I may not listen to you. I may debate with you or against you. I will speak a little louder. Work a little harder to spread my ideas instead. But I will not assault you. I cannot make exceptions to my morals. America cannot make exceptions to our rules. As soon as we start adding stipulations to who has freedom of speech, we all lose it.
