The Real Lesson In The Will Smith Slap

We now live in a society that refuses to accept personal responsibility. If you doubt me, stop and think — really think! Who is most often being punished in our society today: the people who are blatantly breaking the law and flaunting it in our faces, or those who uphold the notion of personal responsibility and who seek to hold others accountable? If you are intellectually honest about this question, you will have to reach the same conclusion I did:

We are punishing those who still embrace personal responsibility while rewarding those who have not only rejected it, they refuse to even acknowledge that individual accountability is a thing.

We see it in the way we let the courts remove any accountability when we malign someone who can be labeled as a ‘public figure.’ Folks, it is a violation of Natural Law to assert that a Natural Right is forfeit simply because you are in the public eye. Honestly, in today’s age of social media fame, this could and probably should apply to anyone and everyone on the Internet expressing an opinion — and silence is the expression of an opinion (do the math on that one yourself).

Our Founders did not exempt the press from the consequences of what it published. This is because our Founders were much wiser and much more civilized than we are today. You see, there is a thing that is still in the common law (but our judges refuse to acknowledge) called ‘fighting words.’ In short, if you say something that a reasonable person would expect to illicit a violent response, it is not protected speech! Nor is it considered ‘assault’ when a person openly insults another person, and the person who was insulted whips the insulter’s rear end. That is called ‘the law of the jungle,’ and our Social Contract does not and was never meant to subvert this law. If a person ignores their duties and responsibilities toward others under the Social Contract (which is what they do when they use fighting words), then that persona cannot turn around and claim the protections of that Social Contract when they get what they deserve. They have violated the Social Contract, so they are no longer protected by it.

NOTE: To hold an insulted person to the contract when they have been attacked by someone who has violated the contract is also a violation of the Social Contract.

Did you notice how everyone immediately jumped to the idea of charging Will Smith with assault? By what authority? Since our courts have ignored the common law rule that allows us to pummel someone who uses fighting words to insult us, the courts have no authority to then hold the insulted person to the terms of the law. When they break the contract that creates the very authority by which they broke it, the courts cede their authority as a court of law. In short, the courts have invalidated themselves, but we don’t care because we refuse to take the responsibility that comes with acknowledging that truth.

Now, it’s true: we could sue the insulter for slander and libel, and we should be allowed to do that to the media. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of what we say. But then, because of the courts’ perversions of our Social Contract, we are doubly victimized when we sue our assailant. This is because we now have to expend time and money to recover something the courts are more likely to refuse to recognize: our damages. The courts like to assert that no damages are owed because we suffered no tangible loss, but they will happily collect damages for themselves from the accused in the form of fines. This is actually an indication of just how much of a mess we have allowed our rulers to make of our system. When the victim can recover no damages, but the courts can collect from the assailant, the system is irrevocably broken and needs to be dissolved. How did things become such a mess? By the perversion of Natural Law. This includes the rejection of holding people responsible for their actions, but that includes our refusal to act against those officials who first refused to uphold the terms of our Social Contract.

If we were to hold people accountable for their actions, the media would be much less of a problem as they would be sued into bankruptcy. Corporations would lose their legal protections, which would result in their destruction. Both would act more responsibly as a result. Government would also be nuderd because it could no longer make false assertions such as, ‘you deserve‘ or ‘you’re a victim,’ then use them to justify government over-reach. If you refuse to work for your own support, you deserve nothing and are a victim of no one and nothing but yourself and your own sloth. If you commit a violent crime and your victim defends themselves, you deserve nothing from your victim. More than this, there would be no attempt to excuse a criminal as being a victim of their past, which would end the practice of filing charges against the criminal’s victim when they defend themselves. Today, because of the refusal to assign accountability where it belongs, our courts would charge the victim who defends themselves and award damages to the person who was committing the crime. It is all lawlessness, and more than the law of Man, it is lawlessness in the eyes of the Creator, under Whose Laws our entire system was based.

Oh, and one more thing. I do not care how immoral Will Smith’s lifestyle is. That does not change what is right and wrong. To excuse lawlessness because the victim lives an immoral lifestyle is a fallacy. It is the fallacy of ‘and you, too,’ or ‘an appeal to hypocrisy’ (different ways of naming the same thing). A fallacy is a violation of the rules of logic, which is a violation of Natural Law. So, please, don’t talk to me about how immorally Smith lives. That has nothing to do with reacting to fighting words.

Now, if you want to debate whether or not the whole event was staged…. Well, now that is a different subject, and I’m all ears (mostly because I am very suspicious that this is exactly what it was: a stunt to gain publicity for a dying event).

ADDENDUM 3-29-2022

This is what I mean about free speech needing to suffer the consequences. I do not think Disney should be silenced. It should be free to say whatever it wishes. However, when it openly and intentionally lies like this:

Disney blatantly lies about Florida bill protecting parents’ rights — and the backlash is swift

Corporate protections should be lost and the CEO, Board and ALL stock holders should be open to personal law suit — and yes, even by the State legislature and governor who passed the Bill. What’s more, the stock holders should be allowed to sue the Board and all management types — personally. They have breached their fiduciary responsibility to their share holders, and they should pay the cost of having done so.

The point is simple: speech should be free from censorship, but not free from the consequences of what is said.

5 thoughts on “The Real Lesson In The Will Smith Slap

  1. Interesting post, Joe. So a couple of thoughts:
    1. First of all, I agree that this slap was all staged and for show. To distract from the KJB hearing and to get some publicity for the completely grotesque and dying elite self-congratulating awards ceremony. It’s sad but amazing how people are amused and distracted at the slightest things. I recommend you read (if you haven’t already) Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, by Neil Postman. Excellent! And written in 1985. You will love this book.

    2. BUT, though, I disagree with you on a couple of points. One is, that this is what the whole, “turn the other cheek” text is about. If one is insulted, do not return insult for insult, or give violence for insult. Matthew Henry’s comment on this verse is helpful: “Suffer any injury that can be borne, for the sake of peace, committing your concerns to the Lord’s keeping. And the sum of all is, that Christians must avoid disputing and striving. If any say, Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and those who act upon right principles will have most peace and comfort.” We are not talking about self-defense when our lives are threatened, but Chris Rock’s “joke” (as distasteful as it was) was an insult. I know this verse applies to followers of Christ, and I doubt Will Smith is, but it is good for us to keep in mind.

    3. Also, Will Smith blatantly and braggingly lives in an “open marriage,” in which he and his wife have sex with other partners, openly. How can he even pretend to defend his wife’s integrity when they both live in this manner? To me, this is the height of hypocrisy. He claims that Rock insulted his wife, yet their entire marriage life is an insult to each other’s dignity and respect.

    Then again, we both know this was nothing but a stage show, all meant to give the masses some entertainment for a moment, and generate a bunch of silly memes.

    1. I do not disagree on your take of Scripture, but I’d ask you to note one thing for me, please.

      I specifically addressed Natural Law, not revealed law and teachings. 🙂

      This is the law that applies to ALL Men, not just disciples of YHWH. It is the first law mentioned by Paul in Romans 1-2, and the law by which Locke wrote his treatises on government, which later guided our Founders in how to take the Scriptures and apply them to all Men, whether they be believers or not.

      Otherwise, I concur with everything you said, I just wasn’t addressing that aspect of this issue (sorry 😦 ).

  2. And here I thought “fighting words” was just a figure of speech…Thank you for your insight.

    1. It’s a figure of speech derived from a real legal principle which is still in our common law heritage. Just be careful to note TheologyandSteak’s comment on this for believers 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s