3 ms·

In the USA it is historically and modernly generally considered a good idea. The legal term is "Fighting words" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words ht

by kolpa 8y ago

In the USA it is historically and modernly generally considered a good idea. The legal term is "Fighting words" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

aetherson 8y ago
"At most, [the fighting words doctrine] allows punishment of face-to-face insults, directed at a particular person and likely to cause an immediate fight." https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/01/fighting-words/ https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/01/fi... That's a podcast with transcript from a free speech lawyer discussing the fighting words doctrine. Again, you're super unclear about the exact scenario you're imagining. But the only way that you could be punished for saying "I am going to murder you" under the fighting words doctrine (instead of the true threat doctrine) is if you said it face-to-face with someone and that person was likely to punch you for it. It is certainly not the case that if you made some statement like "I think you should die in a fire," online and then someone else that you had never interacted with attacked the person that you spoke to, that the fighting words doctrine would have anything whatsoever to do with any case against you.
- kolpa 8y ago
  I may have conflated "fighting words" with "imminent lawless action". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
  - aetherson 8y ago
    Look, why don't you actually try describing some scenario and what you think ought to be the legal result of that scenario. There are almost no internet comment threads that can plausibly be described as inciting imminent lawless action.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    For "imminent" to apply, the person posting the comment would have to be reasonably believing (or should have been reasonably believing) that said comment would cause the action. Do you seriously think this bar can be met for a random Internet comment like that? Especially given the specific example prompting the court case that you are citing?
rwmj 8y ago
In the UK we have Joint Enterprise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose). However this piece of common law is controversial already without trying to use it to imprison large groups of internet users because one of them commits a violent act.

by kolpa 8y ago

aetherson 8y ago

"At most, [the fighting words doctrine] allows punishment of face-to-face insults, directed at a particular person and likely to cause an immediate fight." https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/01/fighting-words/ https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/01/fi... That's a podcast with transcript from a free speech lawyer discussing the fighting words doctrine. Again, you're super unclear about the exact scenario you're imagining. But the only way that you could be punished for saying "I am going to murder you" under the fighting words doctrine (instead of the true threat doctrine) is if you said it face-to-face with someone and that person was likely to punch you for it. It is certainly not the case that if you made some statement like "I think you should die in a fire," online and then someone else that you had never interacted with attacked the person that you spoke to, that the fighting words doctrine would have anything whatsoever to do with any case against you.

kolpa 8y ago
I may have conflated "fighting words" with "imminent lawless action". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
- aetherson 8y ago
  Look, why don't you actually try describing some scenario and what you think ought to be the legal result of that scenario. There are almost no internet comment threads that can plausibly be described as inciting imminent lawless action.
- int_19h 8y ago
  For "imminent" to apply, the person posting the comment would have to be reasonably believing (or should have been reasonably believing) that said comment would cause the action. Do you seriously think this bar can be met for a random Internet comment like that? Especially given the specific example prompting the court case that you are citing?

rwmj 8y ago

In the UK we have Joint Enterprise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose). However this piece of common law is controversial already without trying to use it to imprison large groups of internet users because one of them commits a violent act.