3 ms·

The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence. The Netherlands has, in practice, some of the most expansive free speech rights of any

The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence. The Netherlands has, in practice, some of the most expansive free speech rights of any corner of the planet, yet they had no problem signing on (to this non-binding agreement).

hugh4life 7y ago
"The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence." What laws are you talking about?
- phil248 7y ago
  An example is the law against distributing information on making bombs/weapons with the intent of promoting/enabling violence. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    Bomb making instructions are generally protected speech. Distributing such instructions with the intent to further a crime makes the speech unprotected. But, each element (e.g, knowingly intending to further a crime, and so on) has to be proven in a court of law to strip the speech of its protected status. From the statute you linked: "...with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence;" edit: typos
  - Reelin 7y ago
    In these sorts of discussions I think it's very important to quote the relevant parts of such a large, dense document when linking to it. US Code, Title 18, §842(p)(2) (A) > to teach or demonstrate the making or use of ... or to distribute ... information pertaining to ... the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction > ... with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence (B) > knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence Note that this very narrowly applies only when intent can be demonstrated, at which point you are arguably an active participant in whatever crime is being committed. In my opinion, that is quite different from your earlier claim. > The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence. This isn't regulating mere promotion, it's regulating a form of active participation. The Christchurch Call agreement isn't even remotely similar.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    You should be aware that just because something is in the US Code, doesn't mean that it's actually enforceable. For example, there's a law that bans burning the American flag: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/700 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/700 However, this act was explicitly ruled to be protected political speech under the First Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman In a similar vein, the law you've linked to would still be subject to the "imminent lawless action" analysis, were someone to be charged under it.
tomp 7y ago
AFAIK courts have established precedents that it has to be "threat of imminent harm" - so promoting violence is OK ("kill all XXX") but shooting "fire" in a theater isn't. Streaming a terrorist attack doesn't seem to result in a "threat of imminent harm" I think - if anything, it could prevent harm (because the viewers could report the violence and police could prevent further violence).
- Reelin 7y ago
  > but shooting "fire" in a theater isn't There are legally recognized limits in the US, but that particular example isn't a good one. (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...) > But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

hugh4life 7y ago

"The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence." What laws are you talking about?

phil248 7y ago
An example is the law against distributing information on making bombs/weapons with the intent of promoting/enabling violence. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  Bomb making instructions are generally protected speech. Distributing such instructions with the intent to further a crime makes the speech unprotected. But, each element (e.g, knowingly intending to further a crime, and so on) has to be proven in a court of law to strip the speech of its protected status. From the statute you linked: "...with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence;" edit: typos
- Reelin 7y ago
  In these sorts of discussions I think it's very important to quote the relevant parts of such a large, dense document when linking to it. US Code, Title 18, §842(p)(2) (A) > to teach or demonstrate the making or use of ... or to distribute ... information pertaining to ... the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction > ... with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence (B) > knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence Note that this very narrowly applies only when intent can be demonstrated, at which point you are arguably an active participant in whatever crime is being committed. In my opinion, that is quite different from your earlier claim. > The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence. This isn't regulating mere promotion, it's regulating a form of active participation. The Christchurch Call agreement isn't even remotely similar.
- int_19h 7y ago
  You should be aware that just because something is in the US Code, doesn't mean that it's actually enforceable. For example, there's a law that bans burning the American flag: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/700 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/700 However, this act was explicitly ruled to be protected political speech under the First Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman In a similar vein, the law you've linked to would still be subject to the "imminent lawless action" analysis, were someone to be charged under it.

tomp 7y ago

AFAIK courts have established precedents that it has to be "threat of imminent harm" - so promoting violence is OK ("kill all XXX") but shooting "fire" in a theater isn't. Streaming a terrorist attack doesn't seem to result in a "threat of imminent harm" I think - if anything, it could prevent harm (because the viewers could report the violence and police could prevent further violence).

Reelin 7y ago
> but shooting "fire" in a theater isn't There are legally recognized limits in the US, but that particular example isn't a good one. (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...) > But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.