ajn678 said:
No one else is responsible for a person attacking someone than the person doing the attack. Even if they say nasty things to get them angry, at the end of the day, the person responsible is the person committing the physical act of violence. There is no time where simple words justify an actual physical assault on someone else. I don't care what they say.
Well, first to clarify my position: I do not say that if the protestors instigated violence, they are off the hook (though they nevertheless may be--see below). They may not have instigated the violence, however, in which case, they are blameless. In the event they did instigate the violence, I am pointing out that fact alone is not enough to assign blame.
Hopefully it's at least clear what I am claiming. With that out of the way, if by "responsible" you mean "blameworthy" or "culpable" then your principle is obviously false. Consider the following scenarios:
1. Assume you have an elementary-school-age daughter, and that other background details in the scenario are true. For a couple of weeks, you see me jogging every morning on your street. I'm a new addition, but don't ever do anything threatening, though maybe it's weird that I always seem just to have jogged by and gotten in a car when you and your children are loading into the van to go to school.
One day, I happen to be just off the curb, in the street, right in front of your house, just standing there, when you get home. I hail you when you get out of your car, and I say "Greetings! I'm on my way to kill your daughter. I know she's at Booker Elementary School, and I've timed it--I'll get there and blow her head off before the police arrive. My AK and pistols are in my car just down the street. I just thought you should know. Cheery-oh!"
Are you telling me that you should just say "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!" I think at the very least you'd be justified in tackling me to the ground and yelling for your neighbors to come help. And it wouldn't change anything if it was later discovered that I was just messed-up in the head and had no means of carrying out my threats.
2. In this scenario, assume you have a wife, and other background details are true. You and your wife are out on a nice date. I come over to your table and start yelling at your wife, calling her a donkey-sucking cum slut, and various other seriously degrading terms. The restaurant manager and a couple of cooks show up to throw me out, which they have to do by physically grabbing me and throwing me out. I later sue the restaurant, and it turns out they called 911 first, and the operator told them it would be half-an-hour to an hour before police could arrive, which is why the manager took matters into his own hands. You're called to testify, and the restaurant's attorney asks you point-blank whether you think they acted rightly or not.
Are you telling me you should say "no, they were in the wrong to throw him out, since he was never actually assaulting anyone"? Again,
obviously they were not in the wrong. It would not have been wrong of
you to help them.
If your principle were true, there would be no reason to blame propaganda ministers for genocidal regimes, since all they ever do is just utter words. Nor would there be any reason to blame someone who yells "fire!" in a crowded theater, causing a stampede toward the door that crushes someone to death. Words matter. They can cause a person's beliefs to change, and beliefs in turn motivate action. With what we now know about human psychology, it's relatively easy to bring about a set of beliefs in someone such that a) the person is justified in believing them and b) those beliefs justify the instigation of violence. See scenarios above for examples. Blame for an incident can accrue to someone for the words they utter.
