There is a reason criminal law embodies a “mens rea” requirement for most crimes, and recognizes things like insanity defenses. Would the “impact over intentions” crowd apply the same standard to a mentally ill person with who intentionally goes around shouting the “n-word”? If not their “argument” is logically incoherent, in addition to being morally repulsive.
Very well explained, thank you. The examples provided make me wonder if common sense has completely been lost or if ever possessed. Intent vs impact is definitely another tool in their belt to eliminate free speech.
There is a reason criminal law embodies a “mens rea” requirement for most crimes, and recognizes things like insanity defenses. Would the “impact over intentions” crowd apply the same standard to a mentally ill person with who intentionally goes around shouting the “n-word”? If not their “argument” is logically incoherent, in addition to being morally repulsive.
Very well explained, thank you. The examples provided make me wonder if common sense has completely been lost or if ever possessed. Intent vs impact is definitely another tool in their belt to eliminate free speech.