3 ms·
It's usually pretty clear, and if it's not then it's best to err on the side of free speech. Declaring one's desire to overthrow western society is not a threat
by ggreer 9y ago
It's usually pretty clear, and if it's not then it's best to err on the side of free speech. Declaring one's desire to overthrow western society is not a threat or an incitement to violence. Here's an example of what counts as free speech in the US: "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J."[1] It has to be a true threat. Likewise, inciting a mob only applies to actual mobs on the verge of violence.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States#Watts_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_t...
- michaelt 9y agoIt's usually pretty clear Is it? Seems to me if I wanted to preach hate I'd wrap it in allusions, hypotheticals and you-know-what-I-mean Maybe letting that stuff through is the cost of free speech?
- AndrewBissell 9y agoHe's not saying "it's clear when someone is preaching hate" (it is certainly often couched in oblique language to avoid attracting ire and opposition), he's saying, "it's pretty clear when someone is making a threat or incitement to imminent, actual violence." Neither "The Jews will not replace us" nor "euthanize the rentiers" constitutes an imminent threat of violence.