We cannot not let physical force be the final arbiter of what’s right

It says here in my copy of The Columnist’s Handbook that I have to write about the Will Smith Slap this week. And who am I to go against convention!

It seems there are as many facets to this drama as there were people who witnessed it – even if that was in delayed broadcast when you woke up to a slew of outraged comments.

For me, the nub of this matter is “when is violence justified?”

Essentially, Will Smith felt wounded by Academy Awards host Chris Rock’s jokes about Smith’s wife Jada Pinkett Smith, and took to the stage to slap him through the face.

ALSO READ: WATCH: Mayhem at the Oscars as Will Smith slaps Chris Rock onstage

Some people have pointed out that Rock’s comments – making fun of Pinkett Smith’s baldness, when she suffers from alopecia – were a form of violence.

That is true.

However, I must point out that offensive or insulting language is only violent in a metaphorical sense. The law recognises this, and has created different categories to govern defamation and assault.

Offensive, insensitive words are violent in a sense. They are not violent in the way that can cause physical injury, though. You seldom sustain an injury, or death from hurtful words.

For this reason, Will Smith’s decision to assault Chris Rock was an escalation into physical violence.

The conventions of the stage, of stand-up comedy and of comedic roasts are that the performer is protected. They are granted licence to entertain, astound, shock and – yes – even offend us. 

Their medium is words, which may be violent on occasion. But the nature of entertainment is to ride the edge of convention.

If they cross the boundary into personal affront and character assassination, there are remedies available to those affected – not least to people as influential and respected as the Smith family.

I believe the Smith-Rock slap fiasco is symptomatic of a false equivalence between physical and emotional violence. Rock used words. Smith used violence. They are not equal.

ALSO READ: Calling people idiots won’t change their minds

This reason for this emerging similarity between insult and violence may be twofold. On one level, we have been exposed to violence in mass media and entertainment to the extent that we are seldom moved by it.

Secondly, we have built a social-media culture riven with psychological violence.

Online bullying, trolling, insults, microaggressions, doxing, literal attempts to “cancel” people and/or ruin their lives. All of these can have very real, painful and damaging effects.

In the online culture, its not uncommon to hear that someone “chose violence” when what they really did was say something outrageous and potentially offensive.

This is an example of Concept Creep, where the meaning of a word expands over time to encompass concepts further and further removed from its original meaning.

For instance, violence used to mean assault and murder. Now it has expanded to encompass passive-aggression. So, the concept of violence includes genocide, ethnic cleansing and saying “fine thanks” when someone doesn’t greet.

Someone has also pointed out that racism used to mean things like the Holocaust, but now it can also mean a child wearing a Moana outfit.

Concept Creep has also led to the kind of righteous fury that makes people feel entitled to commit physical violence because their feelings have been hurt.

That is not the goal with freedom of speech. The idea is that the right to offend comes with privileges and consequences, as an alternative to physical violence.

This is a precious distinction.

We must protect the right of free speech and resist the temptation to escalate to physical violence. When offended, we must respond in kind, and within the precepts of the law.

If we do not preserve this vital concept, and we allow the escalation to physical violence (even in response to metaphorical violence, no mater how egregious), then strength will become the ultimate judge of what is acceptable.

Might becomes right, and that way lies fascism.

ALSO READ: Cancelling Djokovic is easy, but how far do you take it from there?

The day that anyone who is offended feels justified in assaulting another person, then no one is physically safe.

Whether intentionally or not, we offend, disrespect and belittle, we insult, abuse and hurt others regularly with the words we use. This is not admirable.

In fact, it’s often shameful, and there is much that all of us can improve on, in how we respect others through the language we use.

As a society, we must build and safeguard legal tools for people to protect themselves from verbal harm.

But we dare not return to legislation by force, where he who has the most might will always be right.

Because that’s the other thing, when strength dominates, the one who decides will always be a he.