Can you generally tell the difference between hateful speech and a direct threat?

I can.

I fully support the individual, nature-conferred freedom of expression called "free speech." As an anarchist, I recognize that this does not mean anybody can barge onto my property and start spewing hate.

What I do recognize is the nature-conferred ability of every individual to vocal and written self-expression, and the necessity of individuals to be free to do so within Voluntaryist property norms.

I am not a Nazi, but it is wrong for me to "punch a Nazi" because of what they have simply said. If, however, a Nazi says "I am going to kill you tonight," then most competent arbiters would construe my punch to be a self-preservativory one, done in self-defense.

When speech is restricted, there is NO FREEDOM. Speech literally shapes and creates the reality we experience in so many ways.

Many say that the free speech of "Nazis" should not be respected. This is absurd. To respect free speech for one individual is to respect it for all. To use the violence of the state to keep a Neo-Nazi from simply speaking is to eventually advocate state violence against yourself when the tables of social and state norms turn. This is natural law and "karma" in action.

The real problem here, is the idea of "public property." Now we have a million people claiming to own the same property, and all trying to decide the rules for said property. This is why privatizationof everything is a necessity. Nature itself is essentially a private enterprise. There is order and propriety (property).

For now, free speech must not be met with violence on said "properties."

We must fight the real enemy. The state.

(Please enjoy the video at the top of the page.)

~KafkA

Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)