Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,815
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I've already explained the dividing line in current law. Abstract calls to violence are protected speech. For incitement to apply there must be a reasonable belief the violence being called for is imminent and likely.
So you can say "somebody ought to punch Trump". You can't punch someone for wearing a MAGA hat because you think he's inciting violence.
Note these tests have been applied to protect both the rights of KKK members and Viet Nam war protestors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess_v._Indiana
Everyone here seems to be of the opinion that if violence against speech gets sanctioned they will be the ones who get to decide what speech its OK to ban. A curious belief given the topic of this thread. This is why civil libertarians deny the power to punish speech.
Who the fuck is calling for sanctioning violence against speech legally?
People seeking to make anti-fascist speech/association illegal?