how did you jump from property damage and arson to speech? non sequitur much? financial damage absolutely can be violence, you can ruin someone's life if you take away their job by burning down the place they work at and it could lead to something horrific like them taking their own lives or not being able to pay for their medication or not be able to pay for their child's education, etc as a direct consequence of your act of destroying that place. destroying infrastructure people rely on to stay healthy/safe/economically stable/etc should be considered by civilized people as a violent attack on them, you cannot pretend that disrupting someone's livelihood is not at all related to attacking their liberty and/or life

a case where you can argue speech can be violence would be a verbal threat to hurt or kill someone, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, i don't know why you're bringing up speech, are you trying to say that destroying these cameras is a form of expressing freedom of speech? (not accusing you of this btw, just genuinely curious what you meant by that)

▲

fc417fc802 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> how did you jump from property damage and arson to speech?

I included speech as an example, the same as your bringing up property damage, arson, and financial damage. It seemed relevant given the general shape of what you were expressing.

Someone being driven to suicide or unable to pay for medication is not an example of violence. It might be many things but violence is most certainly not one of them.

> you cannot pretend that disrupting someone's livelihood is not at all related to attacking their liberty and/or life

Indeed it is _related_ but that does not magically make it "violence". Violence is direct physical harm. Not indirect and not anything other than physical.

> a case where you can argue speech can be violence

Speech is _never_ violence. That's about as close to definitionally impossible as you can get. (Here's a fun related observation: violent rhetoric is not itself violent.)

Respectfully, you seem to be having extreme difficulty comprehending the fact that words have meaning. It's impossible to engage in meaningful discussion with someone who either can't or won't conduct themselves in accordance with that fact.

▲

dirasieb 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Speech is _never_ violence.

coming up to you on the street and telling you i'm going to stab you to death is not violence as long as i don't go through with the stabbing? someone needs to better secure the mental asylum wifi, you shouldn't have access to it

shouting "BOMB!" at an airport for fun is not violence even though you're causing people to trample each other and might result in serious physical harm that's resulting directly from your action?

▲

fc417fc802 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Your first example, no. That is a threat of violence and is illegal literally everywhere (even in the US). However it does not become "violence" until you commit a physical act.

Your second example is inciting public panic. Again, not violence. And again, illegal literally everywhere (at least AFAIK).

> serious physical harm that's resulting directly from your action

That's the thing, the panic was the direct result. The physical harm was indirect. Once again, words have meanings.

Perhaps you should seek to learn more about the law. You might find that, in addition to words having meaning, society has been dealing with "problematic" behaviors for as long as it has existed and is honestly pretty well equipped for it in general. These things have been catalogued extensively. Referring to everything as "violence" is no better than labeling every other crime "terrorism".

	▲	cindyllm 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]