Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the Supreme Court has ruled on similar questions, in that there's a distinction between how the "speech" is intended and how it is construed. For instance, someone waving a nazi flag might feel to me like an incitement to violence, while to them it might feel like an expression of free speech, with no intention to incite violence. In that sense it would be protected speech, despite how I feel. So the question…
> For instance, someone waving a nazi flag might feel to me like an incitement to violence, while to them it might feel like an expression of free speech, with no intention to incite violence. Disregarding how you both feel about it, waving a nazi flag legitimizes and strengthens an inherently violent ideology of ethnic cleansing. Intent - real or pretend - doesn't matter.
Here, you are outside my argument, and from that perspective I have trouble disagreeing with you.
But inside the argument, I am correct (or "technically correct" from your perspective), and you are wrong - meaning, the Supreme Court, the American view consistent with the 1st amendment - that is more in alignment with my argument.
But I feel like I remember there being a set of academic terms that refer to each of our perspectives. Being inside vs outside the argument. Does anyone know?
And there's also the (very American) question of when "technically correct" is no longer correct anyway, like when being lawful is unjust, and civil disobedience is called for - oftentimes accepted by history (MLK's civil disobedience, boycotts, shutting down roads, etc) - a good example from this week is the perspective of the protesters who tore down that statue, and the perspective of the very long line of people who are seeking to turn themselves in to (falsely) confess.