Logo from: https://www.dignity.us/
Earlier this week, I attended a Continuing Legal Education presentation on the Dignity Index. Its purpose is to increase civility in public discourse. As the partisan divide deepens, both sides express contempt for the other, which forces us further apart. The Dignity Index does a great job of explaining why some language makes it possible for both sides to work together, and why other language drives us further apart. It launched about two years ago.
I’m providing a brief summary here, but I encourage you to look at all the resources on their website: https://www.dignity.us/. They’ve boiled the essence down into short talking points and easily readable elements and principles on their principles page: https://www.dignity.us/resources.
Comments are scored on an eight point scale, with eight demonstrating the highest empathy and respect, and one basically calling for the extermination of anyone you dislike. The part I’m pasting in here is brief enough for a blog post. There is a lot more explanation and some great talking points on their website, and I encourage you to read it and maybe spread it around. We could all benefit from evaluating our own words to see if we’re respecting the dignity of other people. The Dignity Index applies to our own words too.
The presenter had only an hour. That’s enough for a brief introduction. She presented us with examples from pop culture to practice using the Dignity Index. We scored comments from a movie and a tv show. In this post, I’m going to present some quotes from the Church leaders for scoring, searching specifically for their words about people they disagree with since the whole point of the Dignity Index is to acknowledge the dignity of and humanity of people we disagree with. The Dignity Index Scoring Guide is on the resources page: https://www.dignity.us/resources. The quotes I’ve put in while scoring are taken from the Dignity Index Scoring Guide.
Quote 1
From Dallin H. Oaks, “Following Christ” on Saturday morning:
“Potential adversaries should begin their discussions by identifying common ground on which all agree. To follow our Perfect Role Model and His prophet, we need to practice what is popularly known as the Golden Rule: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” We need to love and do good to all. We need to avoid contention and be peacemakers in all our communications. This does not mean to compromise our principles and priorities but to cease harshly attacking others for theirs. That is what our Perfect Role Model did in His ministry. That is the example He set for us as He invited us to follow Him.”
Oaks isn’t really talking about the people he disagrees with in this quote. He’s instructing all to treat each other with respect. The suggestion to start by finding common ground is Level Six (“We talk to the other side, searching for the values and interests we share, and using them as a basis for cooperation.”). The statement that we don’t compromise our principles and priorities but we “cease harshly attacking others for theirs” is Level Five (“I share my views with no contempt, so they’re easier for others to hear.”).
Quote 2
Bradley R. Wilcox, “O Youth of the Noble Birthright”, General Conference, October 2024.
“Why do Latter-day Saints live so differently? … when we use our moral agency to make and keep covenants with God, we become heirs of the everlasting covenant God has made with our forebearers in every dispensation. Said another way, we become “children of the covenant.” That sets us apart. … Does your birthright mean you are better than others? No, but it does mean you are expected to help others be better. Does your birthright mean you are chosen? Yes, but not chosen to rule over others; you are chosen to serve them. Is your birthright evidence of God’s love? Yes, but more important, it is evidence of His trust. … Because of your choice to make and keep covenants, He offers you His trust. He trusts you to be different, peculiar, and set apart because of the important work He trusts you to do.”
The essence of Wilcox’s talk is that LDS live differently because they are better, but in a way that makes LDS youth loving and focused on service. LDS youth are better and more trusted. He was trying to walk a fine line between saying LDS youth are better than other youth, but somehow they aren’t supposed to look down on them? Something like that.
I would rate Wilcox’s talk around Level Four (“We’re better than those people. They don’t really belong. They don’t really share our values.”) with some ideas that stoop down to Level Three (“We’re the good people; they’re the bad people. It’s us versus them.” and “They look down on us and mock our values.”). Wilcox discussed an ‘us vs. them’ situation, while clearly trying to be nice about it. Divisive language sounds a lot like Wilcox when the speaker is trying to be super polite about relating us versus them ideas.
Quote 3
Russell M. Nelson, “Christ is Risen,” General Conference, April 2021.
“Your mountains may be loneliness, doubt, illness, or other personal problems. Your mountains will vary, and yet the answer to each of your challenges is to increase your faith. That takes work. Lazy learners and lax disciples will always struggle to muster even a particle of faith.”
These words hurt a lot of people. I would score this at Level Three (“makes a personal attack on the other, targeting performance, competence, appearance, background, character or morals.” and “takes credit for good outcomes and blames the other side for bad outcomes.”).
Quote 4
Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join With Us,” General Conference, October 2013.
“The search for truth has led millions of people to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, there are some who leave the Church they once loved.
One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?”
Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.
Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church.
In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.”
END QUOTE
Uchtdorf’s description of people who leave the Church scores at Level Seven (“I’m curious about what people have been through and how they came to believe what they believe.”) and Level Eight (“Everyone is born with inherent worth, so I treat everyone with dignity no matter what.”).
The Dignity Index is a great idea and I hope it catches on. It doesn’t address every problem, and it isn’t designed to. One issue that is not addressed by the Dignity Index is how to handle outright lies and bigotry. The CLE presenter said that speaking with dignity doesn’t remove accountability when you’re confronting bad behavior, but the one hour we had wasn’t enough to get into accountability for lies and bigotry, and the harm they cause.
Next week, I’m going to publish the Reality Index that helps rate how well information connects with reality. I’m also thinking about a Power Index, which would acknowledge how different it is to talk about disagreements when you’re in a position of power or a position of vulnerability.
Questions:
- Copy paste a quote from a Church leader and rate it on the Dignity Index.
- Look at your last several comments on social media. How would you rate yourself on the Dignity Index?
- Is there someone you particularly admire for their ability to engage the opposing point of view without erasing the opponent’s dignity?
Wheat & Tares 
It seems so rare that a person can consistently communicate on Level 8. It takes a lot of patience, grace, and real love for all humans. I have known a few people that work with the homeless, with those suffering from addiction, and other similar challenging situations that manage to keep to Level 8 in the way they conduct themselves. It is perhaps a gift for some. For the rest of us, I guess the starting point is to be intentional and honest about our own behavior (and what is in our heart). So much easier said than done!
Thanks for sharing this. Extremely timely and thought provoking. I am going to try to be better.
Thanks for such a thought provoking post and these great examples. I do probably mostly live around a 4 or 5, but I have moments of 6, 7, or 8.
I’m nowhere near a consistent 7 or 8 myself. I don’t know if anyone is. Even Jesus would probably score a 3 on his comments about religious hypocrites.
Thought-provoking post indeed. My question is what exactly is the other side? Also, on whom is the onus to reach out and listen? What if that other side does not want to listen to you? What if that other side is extremist, such as radical Islam, which doesn’t affect us here in the US, Australia, or Europe that much, but is a real thing in so much of the Muslim world?
Trumpists aren’t radical Muslims, although I’ve heard some Trump-supporting radicals, such as the Proud Boys, called “Y’all Qaeda.” But no doubt many of these folks are extreme in a different way. Many Trump supporters hold beliefs that are well outside the Overton window of collective mainstream intellectual thought of what is considered to be legitimate disagreement in the US, but carry tremendous influence nonetheless. It is these beliefs, after all, that gave us not only January 6, but all the narratives that have downplayed and even justified Jan. 6 afterwards and turned those convicted of crimes and misdemeanors into unfairly treated martyrs. Conventional wisdom had previously been not to engage these folks at all, but just to ignore them. However, these beliefs are so widespread that we can no longer do that. Yet often when we try to engage these folks, we can be met with extremely slippery logic and bad argumentation and even sometimes open hostility. Conspiratorial logic is incredibly difficult to engage. It tends to jump around all over the place, repeat ad nauseum that which has already been debunked, cry victim, and fixate endlessly in seeming anomalies, and is replete with logical fallacies, lies, and false accusations. It likes to start lots of fires, which are very easy to start, but take time to put out. In front of audiences with short attention spans who like gotcha moments, it is nearly impossible to engage conspiracy theorists. If we had a classroom setting with 45 hours over the period of a semester replete with readings, discussion, activities, and assignments, we could overcome conspiratorial logic. But we don’t have that much time and space.
I believe everyone has a right to speak, but they don’t necessarily have a right to be heard. Also sometimes some forms of wrongness, and collective wrongness, are simply dangerous.
I was introduced to the Dignity Index a couple of years ago at a Utah League of Citys and Towns conference. I happen to be on a city council of a small town. My mayor was with me and didn’t realize that Shriver was a grandnephew of John F. Kennedy. He liked what he heard until he learned who Shriver was, then he kind of turned off. I thought that was sad.
I like to think in my dialog with others that I’m a 6-8, but I’m probably a 4-6 unless I’m driving on the freeway because a big truck rolling coal with a big flag on it somewhere, then I know I’m a 1-2.
I like the Dignity Index, but I’m afraid that it’s somewhat like the Utah Governor’s “Disagree Better” in that it’s a good theory, but even he can’t live it because if he doesn’t like the question, he’ll say it’s a bad question and won’t answer it or even talk about it.
We live in a very divided and polarized society. It’s taken a long time to get there, and it will take a long time to get back to civility. I appreciate the goal provided by the Dignity Index but wonder how to deal with people who either haven’t heard of it or willingly ignore it. Is turning the other cheek the way to deal with it?
As Brad d says if the other person is at 1 and is talking of having you shot I think this kind of care will only be seen as weakness by them.
In a normal world this would help people refine their speech and behaviour.
Will know in a couple of weeks what the world looks like.
Wonderful post Janey!
This is something we discuss all the time in MWEG. To be a real peacemaker it’s necessary to speak up about what is good and right and to criticize those things that are wrong. It’s very possible to criticize things that are wrong without cutting down on other people and treating them without dignity.
I work very hard to do exactly that. Please call me out so I can improve at those times I may miss the mark. I believe speaking to and about others in a way that acknowledges that they are beloved children of God, is a necessary part of following Christ. The wrong doings or mistakes of the person you are talking about does not change God’s love for them. We need to treat others with respect as children of God even when they are doing wrong, while still calling out their behavior as wrong.
Is there someone you particularly admire for their ability to engage the opposing point of view without erasing the opponent’s dignity?
I appreciate people like Adam Grant, who has an open mind, Sharon McMahon, America’s Government Teacher who keeps me informed of current events without all the trappings of a news media outlet, and Julie Hanks, who helped me understand that it’s not my job to manage other people’s expectations and that having a real relationship is a two-way street. All of these individuals have been attacked and threatened for their content and I admire that they seem to remain calm and carry on. Their responses trend toward 6-8. Kudos.
When JD Vance made his childless cat lady remarks, I saw an interview with Pete Buttigieg. His response to Vance’s comment was vulnerable, raw, calm, and well-reasoned. No name callling. No mud slinging. He simply shared how his life experience illustrates how much he cares about the future of the world notwithstanding that he has no biological children. It gave me chills. Total 8 response.
Personally, I’m similar to Hawkgrrrl.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion, all. Brad D, your questions are right on. As I was listening to the speaker, I wondered if the Dignity Index could be used to tone police people who are trying to bring us all back to reality. I’m not willing to reach out and listen to Big Lie advocates talk about the judicial system like it’s rigged and corrupt and that’s the reason all the lawsuits about election fraud got thrown out. “Dignity” shouldn’t be used to platform lies and bigotry, and drag them into mainstream discourse. And that’s happened. People talk like they have a right to be respected for their ‘opinions’ and their opinions are outright bigotry and lies.
Next week, I’m going to take a stab at writing a Reality Index, and a Power Index.
Yeah Buttigieg is incredible. He has the best communication skills of any politician I’ve ever seen and his takes are always grounded in logic and compassion.
I looked at the dignity index website and I didn’t see anything that addresses power imbalances. It’s hard to find common values with someone who’s actively oppressing you and who has the power to keep doing it indefinitely unless you fight back.
I think that’s the problem in America right now. With competing sets of “facts,” both sides see the other as an existential threat. I believe we’re more than capable of treating each other with dignity when we all feel we have an equal seat at the table. But the left believes Trump wants to use the military on American citizens he doesn’t like (because he, you know, said that out loud) and the right believes the Dems can summon hurricanes to ravage red states (because…honestly I have no idea how anyone believes this). We need to turn the temperature down somehow. Personally I believe the best way to do that is to hold media and influencers to a higher legal standard of truth (as was discussed in the recent W&T post about lies). But under the circumstances I think both Buttigieg and Harris do a fantastic job responding to rage bait with calm and dignity.
I agree with Kirkstall, that I want more information on how to be at level 8 with those with a power differential. Or is it even possible? Not only is it hard to treat someone with power over you as a full human being/child of God, but the same goes for those we have power over. It is hard to feel “safe” with those who have more power, because we are always afraid of the power. The human tendency is to see those with power over us as monsters or machines or gods, just not human like us. We don’t willingly give power to someone else unless we see them as better in some way, smarter at the least. Why church members hero worship leaders. Why we obey doctor’s instructions or advice. Why we trust surgeons to cut us open. And the opposite holds. It is hard to have power over someone else without seeing them as lesser. Our own guilt of having that power causes us to try to justify why we have it. If we owned slaves, we either have to see them as deserving of slavery or accept that we are bad people. This is why power corrupts, because in order to accept the fact of the power, and still believe ourselves to be good, we have to dehumanize those we have power over. And the longer we have power, the harder it is to believe we are not somehow deserving of that power.
I just finished Lundy Bancroft’s book: Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men. It’s about abusive men (specifically, but the principles can apply to any abuser) and why they abuse others. It’s because they believe they are entitled to control their partners, and they do not respect them. They’ve been taught and believe that any pushback to these entitlements is justification to abuse their partner, and they can be charming and manipulative in how they present their “rights” that have been violated. They are extremely good at enlisting others to support them in abusing their partner. So I agree with others that I’m unclear how to increase on this Dignity scale when the other person is abusive and is misrepresenting the truth and avoiding responsibility for their abuse of others, or they are enabling the abuse of others. One of the things an abuser does to gain sympathy is to paint themself as the victim (DARVO–reverse victim and offender).
I have thought long and hard about this ever since Trump came along and I could not understand how or why so many people thought as they did.
First, I believe we need to see everyone as a child, as someone who has not yet suffered the slings and arrows of life. It is easier to love and respect this version of a person.
Second, I’ve come to believe that we all become who we are due to a wide assortment of events in our lives: bullying (either one or many attacks); parenting problems; a single traumatic thing that happened that may not seem like anything to someone else; every relationship we have ever interacted in; siblings; friends; lack of love; too much attention; too little or too much self esteem; unhealthy feelings about money, sex, food; having poor values; learning to be judgmental; sexism; racism, and on and on.
We are complex people. We cannot understand each person and what events brought them to where they are, but it does seem clear that lack of love, stability, and low self-esteem lure people to finding places where they are valued and accepted or where they seek money, fame, and success as a way to get those things or a facsimile of those things.
This, I believe, is what God looks at when he looks at our hearts. He sees why we are who we are. If those events have led us astray then we are responsible to fix them, but we cannot see that we are in a bad place, if we are constantly told we are still not acceptable.
This is why we must offer dignity and respect to everyone and love and kindness where we can. Then we must model the best life we can and help wherever possible. I guarantee you are being watched constantly by those around you. Your personal influence is much larger than you imagine.
Here is an Uchtdorf quote that begs for its own bespoke rank in the dignity scale:
“We are His beloved children.
Even those who reject Him.
Those who, like a headstrong, unruly child, become angry with God and His Church, pack their bags, and storm out the door proclaiming that they’re running away and never coming back…may not notice the concerned parents looking out the window. With tender hearts, they watch their son or daughter go—hoping their precious child will learn something from this heartrending experience and perhaps see life with new eyes—and eventually return home.
So it is with our loving Heavenly Father. He is waiting for our return.
Your Savior, tears of love and compassion in His eyes, awaits your return. Even when you feel far away from God, He will see you; He will have compassion for you and run to embrace you.” Uchtdorf, “Come and Belong,” April 2020 conference.
On the dignity scale, one might rate this fairly high, despite the “unruly child” moniker because it has a caring paternal tone and children are typically considered innocent and therefore more easily forgiven.
But the dignity scale does not address the indignity implied in this rhetoric:
LGBTQs often see the LDS Jesus as an unsafe person who excludes them from forming families. Telling LGBTQs that Jesus sheds “tears of love and compassion” while awaiting their return to the fold is not healthy; it is downright toxic manipulation, even though on the surface it appears loving.
I rate this talk with my made-up Level 3.5: “we are the good people, and we are weaponizing our goodness to induce guilt/shame and imply that ‘they’ are the bad people. But we will not say that quiet part out loud.”
On unruly children. My youngest was quite headstrong, and would on occasion slam out of the house in a rage. They were a child. I did not watch sorrowfully from the window. I would run out after them, walk with them, talk with them, hug them and bring them back safely home.
I used to wonder what kind of teenager they’d become, but actually the teen years were easier.
Wrysauce,
There is an inherent lack of respect (arguably unavoidable for many members) in that they are unable to step back and see the church’s view of people who leave the church as inherently sinful, as one point of view among other equally valid points if view. They don’t see other points of view as having any veracity or basic verifiable reasons for their existence besides sin. They don’t understand it can be the right choice for some people in some situations. This indicates a lack of humility and a lack of respect and empathy for people who are having a different experience with church.
The quote also fails to see that many people who leave the church consider their actions very very carefully and with a great deal of integrity. Uchtdorf is a very kind loving man. Still he is struggling to see outside of his own positive experience with the church and understand the real reasons people choose to separate themselves from the church.
I read the supporting link material and there’s something missing in this post. The usefulness of the dignity index is very context dependent. The dignity index is most helpful when there’s high potential for contempt between parties. One needs to clearly communicate at the high end of the scale when there’s been a loss of respect (or a high risk of it), when the parties have different self-interests, or could easilt feel misunderstood or threatened.
By contrast, in other communication contexts that respect is already established. Respect during communication should never be violated. But when the communication isn’t a dialogue or negotiation, when it’s instead, say, one member of a tribe giving instruction to fellow members of the tribe with whom they share history, values and objectives… the respect is often already established. Amongst themselves, the tribe is already in the top half of the scale and don’t need constant reminding.
Some of the political examples given by other commenters here here fit the first context. But Janey uses LDS conference talk examples in her post where there’s a misapplication of the index. Conference talks fall into the second communication context. Most members of the target audiece for LDS conference talks don’t have a history of contempt for the speakers. Oakes, Nelson, Wilcox aren’t in a negotiation. And they not trying to address others holding opposing views or who# risk being misunderstood or offended. They’re speaking to a self-selected audience of favorable fellow tribe members. For most in the audience, a high score on the dignity was established well in advance the conference talk.
.
Pagan,
Maybe the speakers at conference act like they are just speaking to the in group, but reality is something different. They specifically tell missionaries to invite nonmembers to watch conference. And they often talk around or about LGBTQ people and their families like they aren’t in the audience, but of course we are in the audience. They talk about people that no longer attend church in a negative way when they often are listening, and certainly their family is. What is said in conference is heard by everyone in the broader Utah, western states, LDS and LDS adjacent community. It should be an uplifting event that invites all people to follow Christ. It should never be a place and a method of saying who is in and who is outside of the community. It should never be a weird place where we chastise people about how they wear their underwear. That is the opposite of inviting people to follow Christ.
Also, in addition to lsw329’s response to pagan, when a speaker shows contempt to *anyone* whether in the supposed audience or not, his speaking can still be evaluated by this dignity index. Let me explain why. We are all God’s children and by exempting person X from the respect due to God’s children we draw an exception to the idea that we are all God’s children. I grew up in the church singing “I am a child of God.” But because of the lessons and stories told, I decided that *I* was not a child of God, but a step child or something. Because all the stories and lessons and conference talks talked about an in group of beloved children of God and “those nasty sinners” I knew that God didn’t love me. Not that I was a nasty sinner, but because I was an abused child who internalized a sense of not being good enough to deserve love.
So, any time the speaker says anything that holds other humans in contempt or labels them “lesser” his speaking SHOULD be evaluated by this dignity scale, no matter his audience. Because whether he knows it or not his audience holds those who feel his contempt. As lws329 mentions, conference talks are heard by the parents of LGTB children, and it is heard by children who will later decide they are LGTB. My daughter and her wife were both raised in the church and heard all the horrible condemning of LGTB as horrible sinners who God can’t possibly love (or he would not have made them that way) they grew up with those messages before they even knew those messages were aimed at them.
I grew up when the church still openly taught that the Catholic Church was the Great and Abominable church of the devil, and the family next door was Catholic. So, we were taught to hold people we knew in contempt. See, you never have an audience who isn’t harmed by teachings that fail to respect human dignity.
Teachings that fail to show respect to ALL human beings are harmful, no matter the supposed audience. We just don’t live in a world where we are all in the same tribe and all love and trust everyone we live with as being in the same tribe.
Sometimes it isn’t what one says that matters (or hurts); it is how/where one says it. This applies to General Conference. Pagan is right, I think, that there is usually a relationship of trust between general conference speaker and member listeners, but lws329 is also right that we do invite “outsiders” to listen to conference, and outsiders can include the inactive, the disaffected, investigators (term no longer in vogue), etc., and even children and faithful people who are exhausted One must consider the forum. General conference used to be a closed, or almost closed, meeting before video recordings. No longer. It is very much a public meeting. The talks should reflect that. The same is true for sacrament meeting. As I mentioned elsewhere, last Sunday my bishop spoke and told us (1) that women shouldn’t desire the priesthood because God gave men the priesthood and gave women the ability to birth babies, so all is well and both men and women have a direct tie to God, (2) that unity means that we should be giving to those less fortunate, and (3) that fast offerings this year have fallen behind last year but needs have doubled so we members, who have covenanted to give all, need to give considerably more. Well, in my inner-city ward with lots of diversity, relatively few people have been endowed, so most ward members haven’t made the covenant of consecration in the temple, if they even know what that is. A great number likely pay no tithing (my supposition), so I doubt that they pay fast offerings, and where they do it probably isn’t much, though it might be two meals worth. Someone who may have legitimate needs may have heard this bishop’s message and may have been dissuaded from going to him for assistance because the ward is out of money (that’s what we heard), so that is a potentially harmful message if anyone heard it that way. It is also untrue: no U.S. ward’s fast offering account is limited to that ward’s or stake’s donations, as the funds come from a central bank account in SLC.
Is sacrament meeting the right place to chastise the members for not giving enough? or to tell women that they don’t need the priesthood because they can birth babies? Like lws329 says about general conference, sacrament meeting “should be an uplifting event that invites all people to follow Christ. It should never be a place and a method of saying who is in and who is outside of the community. It should never be a weird place where we chastise people about how they wear their underwear.” Those with heavy burdens should, I hope, find relief in our worship services, or at least a path that leads to relief. Correction and chastisement generally should probably not come from a pulpit but should be provided individually and privately. There may be a place in RQ or RS for more brass tacks, but the composition of the audience should always be considered.
Brad D states: “I believe everyone has a right to speak, but they don’t necessarily have a right to be heard. Also sometimes some forms of wrongness, and collective wrongness, are simply dangerous.
What you’ve proposed here strikes at the very heart of the First Admendment. Either everyone has a right to speak (and be heard by those who would listen) or no one does. Come on now, what are we afraid of? Ideas? Perceptions that we don’t agree with? People who don’t think like you? Welcome to the real World. Put the ideas out into the market….debate them furiously…and (generally speaking – over time) people figure it out.
In a World which Brad describes…..Who becomes the arbiter of what can be said, spoken or heard? I don’t care to live in that kind of society….
lefthandloafer, false accusations, defamation, slander, libel, threats, incitement to violence, spreading foreign propaganda without being registered as an agent of said government, disturbance of peace, perjury, witness intimidation, and many other forms of speech aren’t protected by the First Amendment. Deliberate lies by an authority about the side effects, or lack thereof, of a particular drug are not protected by the First Amendment. These are dangerous. There are many grey areas that Trump, his minions, and right-wing conspiracy theorists inhabit when it comes to speech. And this space needs to be tightened. Trump and other liars who violate laws that govern speech need to suffer legal consequences. Yes, I fear for Haitian migrants in Springfield, OH who were wrongly defamed by a former president, upon no evidence, for eating local residents’ pets. The bomb threats that ensued in response to such false information are not OK. Subtly inciting radical cult followers to undertake such violence is not OK. Trump, Vance, and the liars who originated that lie should be investigated for defamation. Purveyors of a number of conspiracy theories that defame, incite violence, spread propaganda originated by Chinese, Iranian, and Russian governments, and make false accusations should similarly be investigated.
I don’t care to live in a society where dangerous forms speech are permitted and allowed to spread throughout society. I don’t care to live in a society where lawmakers aren’t allowed to design, debate, and pass laws based on expert legal opinion and backed by public support that determine what kinds of speech are legal and what kinds are not legal and where law enforcers aren’t allowed to enforce the law and crack down on those who violate speech laws. In a lawless society that does not guard and hedge speech, true freedom of speech will be stifled, for people will feel threatened by a number of malignant private individuals to speak.