Comment by spacephysics
4 years ago
Calls for acts of violence already hasn’t been legal. Hate speech is outside of that scope, otherwise we wouldn’t have another term for that (all calls for violence could be hate speech, but not all hate speech is calls for violence)
Therefore what is hate speech? Are words violence in and of themselves?
My interpretation of hate speech is that it attempts to "dehumanize" a category of people with malice.
Not a lawyer or a linguist, just Yet Another Internet Spectator.
Sometimes hate speech can be done with a smile and a calm voice, but it's still toxic. I'd posit that that kind of speech has been quite effective in ramping up the political divide and I only see it getting worse.
I recognize that real censorship is a dangerous thing, but would counter that there's a lot of speech that, while legal, should not be celebrated.
Calls for violence are legal in the United States.
The specific thing that is illegal is "incitement to imminent lawless action", which is distinguished from advocacy for violent principles.
>While law enforcement in these areas are working to investigate what we and others reported, unfortunately the process is moving more slowly than the escalating risk.
I wonder if their evaluation of the "escalating risk" had anything to do with the legal standard of imminent action is. Probably not.
Is it really though? If so, then more than half the rappers would of been locked up for this by now.
I suppose who ever put such a law in US court system is holding their breath for the guy who got on International TV / web streaming / a huge crowd of people in Ferguson (?) and said 'burn this bitch down' - burn this mutherfucker down.. [1]
I dunno, maybe he was arrested for this and it is a real thing, if so I missed the news about it.
Or maybe it's technically possible to have to go to court for such a thing, but maybe only a few ever have, and the outcome of such a thing is anyone's guess, even those really into speech law [2]
[1] - https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/us/michael-brown-stepfather-v... [2] - Imminent lawless action test still being fleshed out - https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-...
>Calls for acts of violence already hasn’t been legal.
Pretty sure calls for acts of violence is legal in the United States unless that call for violence is intended to produce an imminent lawless action.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373
Not entirely sure you’re correct on this one?
The constitution (and court interpretation) overrides statutory law.
9 replies →
I’m with you. I thought this fell under the “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” umbrella. I must be missing some nuance here.
> unless that call for violence is intended to produce an imminent lawless action
So it’s fine to call for violence, as long as the violence in question would be legal if it were acted upon?
That makes so much sense, it seems like it would go without saying. If the violent act itself was legal (like a war, or an organized boxing match), why wouldn’t it be legal to solicit or petition for it?
>So it’s fine to call for violence, as long as the violence in question would be legal if it were acted upon?
No. It's fine to call for violence as long as your call is not designed to provoke and cause imminent lawless action. Brandenburg advocated for "revengeance" against the government if their demands were not met, and that was protected speech. Hess v. Indiana also affirms that advocating for lawless action is protected speech.
The point is more - you can legally say "kill Joe Biden" on the internet, but it becomes illegal if you're saying it to someone holding a gun to Joe Biden's head, who then fires it.