Can people be incited to riot?

[repoman]

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And such laws are/would-be a terrible idea that squashes not only free speech, but would make anyone that did anything (such as kiss a same-gender person in public) a criminal if others got angry enough about it to engage in criminal acts.

But you jumped in the thread prior to those examples and took a stance against incitement to riot laws in general. Does this reply mean that you now acknowledge that there are some direct calls for riots and other criminal actions that should be considered criminal?

If incitement to riot laws were written in such a way that they only criminalised direct calls for violence/criminal actions, and nobody who was merely ridiculing and mocking people were caught in the net, I wouldn't really have a problem.

And do people who ridicule and mock people get caught in the net? If so how often? As for how the laws are written, are there any laws written so well as they can never be misused?

 

[Metaphor]

If incitement to riot laws were written in such a way that they only criminalised direct calls for violence/criminal actions, and nobody who was merely ridiculing and mocking people were caught in the net, I wouldn't really have a problem.

And do people who ridicule and mock people get caught in the net? If so how often? As for how the laws are written, are there any laws written so well as they can never be misused?

I'm talking about the philosophy of the law. some people think If words you've written incite people to violence even when those words do not direct them to be violent, the author should face a penalty.

 

[Metaphor]

And I would bristle if the despicable behaviour of this Texan teen were not punished
http://m.smh.com.au/world/teen-girl...-of-friend-conrad-roy-18-20150825-gj768t.html

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And such laws are/would-be a terrible idea that squashes not only free speech, but would make anyone that did anything (such as kiss a same-gender person in public) a criminal if others got angry enough about it to engage in criminal acts.

But you jumped in the thread prior to those examples and took a stance against incitement to riot laws in general. Does this reply mean that you now acknowledge that there are some direct calls for riots and other criminal actions that should be considered criminal?

If incitement to riot laws were written in such a way that they only criminalised direct calls for violence/criminal actions, and nobody who was merely ridiculing and mocking people were caught in the net, I wouldn't really have a problem.

Can you cite any examples of people being convicted of incitement to riot for merely ridiculing and mocking people? Because this very much appears to be a figment of your imagination.

 

[Metaphor]

If incitement to riot laws were written in such a way that they only criminalised direct calls for violence/criminal actions, and nobody who was merely ridiculing and mocking people were caught in the net, I wouldn't really have a problem.

Can you cite any examples of people being convicted of incitement to riot for merely ridiculing and mocking people? Because this very much appears to be a figment of your imagination.

People in previous threads have suggested people who draw Mohammed, knowing it sends Muslims into conniption fits, bear some responsibility for what those Muslims do afterwards.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Can you cite any examples of people being convicted of incitement to riot for merely ridiculing and mocking people? Because this very much appears to be a figment of your imagination.

People in previous threads have suggested people who draw Mohammed, knowing it sends Muslims into conniption fits, bear some responsibility for what those Muslims do afterwards.

This is true to a point in that printing the cartoons would upset people, but there is more to the story. For example, The civil rights activists of Birmingham Alabama knew their actions would more than likely provoke a violent response from certain elements of the white citizenry, but that doesn't mean that the Civil Rights Movement incited the deaths of the four girls in the 16th Street Baptist Church.

 

[laughing dog]

Can you cite any examples of people being convicted of incitement to riot for merely ridiculing and mocking people? Because this very much appears to be a figment of your imagination.

People in previous threads have suggested people who draw Mohammed, knowing it sends Muslims into conniption fits, bear some responsibility for what those Muslims do afterwards.

Are you saying that people in previous threads have suggested that the "inciters of Muslim conniption fits" bear some responsibility for the non-conniption fit reactions of those Muslims?

 

[Metaphor]

People in previous threads have suggested people who draw Mohammed, knowing it sends Muslims into conniption fits, bear some responsibility for what those Muslims do afterwards.

Are you saying that people in previous threads have suggested that the "inciters of Muslim conniption fits" bear some responsibility for the non-conniption fit reactions of those Muslims?

As I recall, yes.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Can you cite any examples of people being convicted of incitement to riot for merely ridiculing and mocking people? Because this very much appears to be a figment of your imagination.

People in previous threads have suggested people who draw Mohammed, knowing it sends Muslims into conniption fits, bear some responsibility for what those Muslims do afterwards.

"People in other threads" ≠ "The criminal justice system." We are not discussing internet trolls expressing opinions, we are discussing incitement to riot laws.

Do you have any examples of people being convicted of incitement for ridiculing and mocking people? Convicting, meaning, in a court of law, with a judge, a prosecutor, a jury of ones peers, etc?

 

[ronburgundy]

Metaphor may have taken an extreme stance against any incitement to riot laws, but he's clarified his concern. Let's not pretend that he talking fiction by pointing to supporters of laws that punish speech that contains zero call for violence and zero intent to trigger violence.

Hate speech laws are examples of attempts to punish such speech, and have no requirement that the speech actually call for any violence, merely that some people might react to it with violence, or even that some people who have been past targets of violence by other people for other reasons might feel "disparaged" by the speech .

IOW, anyone who supports any hate speech laws that go beyond direct and explicit calls for violence, are supporting just the kind of liberty crushing and usually non-violence causing speech that Metaphor is concerned about.

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

So, is there anyone here (Athena?) who supports incitement to riot laws that do not limit the culpability to people who very explicitly call for acts of violence with clear intent of being taken literally and triggering such actions? If you support hate-speech laws, then the answer is probably "yes", and you pose as great a threat to a free progressive society as people that actually incite others to riot.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

IOW, anyone who supports any hate speech laws that go beyond direct and explicit calls for violence, are supporting just the kind of liberty crushing and usually non-violence causing speech that Metaphor is concerned about.

This is an entirely different issue, however, and is covered by a different set of legal precedents (that also vary by country; Germany in particular has VERY harsh laws against holocaust denial or pro-Nazi rhetoric).

So, is there anyone here (Athena?) who supports incitement to riot laws that do not limit the culpability to people who very explicitly call for acts of violence with clear intent of being taken literally and triggering such actions?

I can't speak for Athena specifically, but I have never actually heard anyone on this board come out in favor of expansive hatespeech laws. Even civil rights activists generally take a dim view of such laws, mainly because they feel it's a lot easier to combat racism if racists operate openly and identify themselves to the general public with their rhetoric. Stealthy racism is that much harder to fight; a Klansman who denies his racism can quietly rise to a position of power before an active populace can mobilize to stop him from doing so.

 

[ronburgundy]

This is an entirely different issue, however, and is covered by a different set of legal precedents (that also vary by country; Germany in particular has VERY harsh laws against holocaust denial or pro-Nazi rhetoric).

It is not a different issue at all. The rationale for hate-speech laws is that such speech "might" have some causal impact on others to act in criminal ways, regardless of whether inciting any criminal action was at all intended or can be objectively linked to the speech.
Basically, hate speech laws take the argument for incitement to riot laws and say that if the speech is negative toward specified groups, then no direct threat or mention of criminal acts need be made, merely saying not nice things is sufficient. In fact, laws in many European countries don't even require that the speaker being trying to incite hatred. Merely stating opinions that insult other people's "human dignity" is sufficient.

There are enough anti-liberty leftists in Europe to get such laws passed in most of Europe, and I'm fairly sure there have been people on this board defending those laws, which includes "speech-codes" on campuses of public colleges.
Fortunately, the US cares more about the critical importance of free speech (and thus free thought), so our courts have properly struck down all efforts to prosecute speech that is not explicitly connected to physical violence or other illegal actions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even civil rights activists generally take a dim view of such laws, mainly because they feel it's a lot easier to combat racism if racists operate openly and identify themselves to the general public with their rhetoric. Stealthy racism is that much harder to fight; a Klansman who denies his racism can quietly rise to a position of power before an active populace can mobilize to stop him from doing so.

Which is why I favor with care permitting open discrimination--when it's hidden it does a lot more damage because people don't know to avoid it and there's no backlash against the discriminator.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

This is an entirely different issue, however, and is covered by a different set of legal precedents (that also vary by country; Germany in particular has VERY harsh laws against holocaust denial or pro-Nazi rhetoric).

It is not a different issue at all. The rationale for hate-speech laws is that such speech "might" have some causal impact on others to act in criminal ways, regardless of whether inciting any criminal action was at all intended or can be objectively linked to the speech.

Which is NOT the rationale for incitement laws, which primarily depend on whether or not the knowing intent of the speaker was to incite violence in an environment of immanent criminality. Those laws have origins in a different set of legal precedents that goes all the way to the original Riot Act and the legal wrangling over the definition of "sedition."

The hate speech debate is similar, but stems from a different set of legal calculations. For various reasons, those laws (and attempts to enforce them) have not yet collided with their "incitement to violence" cousins in American jurisprudence. A number of lawyers and judges I know are actually anticipating a court case that brings those two into conflict so we can set precedent one way or the other; the final ruling will be an interesting one.

Fortunately, the US cares more about the critical importance of free speech (and thus free thought), so our courts have properly struck down all efforts to prosecute speech that is not explicitly connected to physical violence or other illegal actions.

It's not completely a dead horse yet; there's a bit of legal ambiguity that people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh thrive in. The real question is whether or not the absence of criminal liability would actually matter if, for example, a rightwing radio host were to be sued by the family of an abortion doctor after a one of his listeners went on a shooting spree inspired by the morning monolog.

 

[repoman]

This is a short 2 minute video that is very topical:

 

[dismal]

This is a short 2 minute video that is very topical:

Whomever put this video together should certainly be prosecuted for incitement.

Also you for posting it. Probably. If it's that inciting.

I didn't view view it because I'm too busy to riot right now.

 

[arkirk]

This is a short 2 minute video that is very topical:

Whomever put this video together should certainly be prosecuted for incitement.

Also you for posting it. Probably. If it's that inciting.

I didn't view view it because I'm too busy to riot right now.

Just like usual, Dismal....too busy and self absorbed to care.