6 ms·

I think it can become illegal in the US if you are encouraging people to do criminal acts imminently. That's arguably incitement, but I'm not a lawyer, and this

I think it can become illegal in the US if you are encouraging people to do criminal acts imminently. That's arguably incitement, but I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

mrep 7y ago
case in point, the girl that convinced her boyfriend to commit suicide: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/02/calls-and-texts-urging-suicide-can-be-manslaughter-court-rules/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/02/calls-and-texts-...
flyingfences 7y ago
It has to be both imminent and likely - if you saw somebody posting something like that, would you think they were actually going to do it? Nah, it'd blend in with all the other larping and shitposts.
- shaki-dora 7y ago
  "It" did actually happen, shortly after the post, and was therefore both imminent and likely. This was also the second such incident within just a few weeks. Knowledge about Christchurch should maybe have informed these "shitposters'". Can't really claim it's all just a joke after people have died.
  - XaoDaoCaoCao 7y ago
    The jokesterism is in response to a joke world. There are innumerable numbers of murders each year but somehow a spree killing is enough to slay irony? 9/11 wasn't enough to slay irony. The reaction to it excaberbated the ironic mode of moderm culture.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    > did actually happen...therefore...likely. That's not how likelihood works.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  It's not that hard to tell.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    What are you basing that on?
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      It's been my preoccupation for over a decade.
Reelin 7y ago
The standard in the US is much more limited than your wording seems to imply. From the page you linked, the two key requirements are: > (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action > (2) is likely to incite or produce such action That second one is an incredibly high bar. Also see a previous thread where this topic came up following the New Zealand incident (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19924352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19924352).
- OJFord 7y ago
  How are courts supposed to determine a priori likelihood? And is it the likelihood pre or post incitement?
  - Zak 7y ago
    Pre, probably based on a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position. For example: A provocateur is giving a speech to a crowd against someone or something. The crowd is agitated, and armed. The provocateur commands the crowd to go physically attack the target of their rage. A reasonable person would think that's likely to start a riot. Someone posts on a message board filled with graphic descriptions of violence the posters purportedly intend intend to commit. The poster says they intend to kill [racial slurs] for the good of white people, start a race war, etc.... Another forum member, knowing that only one or two of the tens of thousands of posts of that nature has been connected to actual acts of violence replies "do it!". A reasonable person would not expect the poster actually planned to commit violence, or that their comment would change the outcome.
- lsiebert 7y ago
  My intention was to state that it was apparently a possibility under U.S. law, not to imply how likely that charge holding up in court would be. But he did shoot up a synagogue and light a mosque on fire, so it might not be too far fetched that he was incited to do so.

mrep 7y ago

case in point, the girl that convinced her boyfriend to commit suicide: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/02/calls-and-texts-urging-suicide-can-be-manslaughter-court-rules/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/02/calls-and-texts-...

flyingfences 7y ago

It has to be both imminent and likely - if you saw somebody posting something like that, would you think they were actually going to do it? Nah, it'd blend in with all the other larping and shitposts.

shaki-dora 7y ago
"It" did actually happen, shortly after the post, and was therefore both imminent and likely. This was also the second such incident within just a few weeks. Knowledge about Christchurch should maybe have informed these "shitposters'". Can't really claim it's all just a joke after people have died.
- XaoDaoCaoCao 7y ago
  The jokesterism is in response to a joke world. There are innumerable numbers of murders each year but somehow a spree killing is enough to slay irony? 9/11 wasn't enough to slay irony. The reaction to it excaberbated the ironic mode of moderm culture.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > did actually happen...therefore...likely. That's not how likelihood works.
anigbrowl 7y ago
It's not that hard to tell.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  What are you basing that on?
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    It's been my preoccupation for over a decade.

Reelin 7y ago

The standard in the US is much more limited than your wording seems to imply. From the page you linked, the two key requirements are: > (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action > (2) is likely to incite or produce such action That second one is an incredibly high bar. Also see a previous thread where this topic came up following the New Zealand incident (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19924352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19924352).

OJFord 7y ago
How are courts supposed to determine a priori likelihood? And is it the likelihood pre or post incitement?
- Zak 7y ago
  Pre, probably based on a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position. For example: A provocateur is giving a speech to a crowd against someone or something. The crowd is agitated, and armed. The provocateur commands the crowd to go physically attack the target of their rage. A reasonable person would think that's likely to start a riot. Someone posts on a message board filled with graphic descriptions of violence the posters purportedly intend intend to commit. The poster says they intend to kill [racial slurs] for the good of white people, start a race war, etc.... Another forum member, knowing that only one or two of the tens of thousands of posts of that nature has been connected to actual acts of violence replies "do it!". A reasonable person would not expect the poster actually planned to commit violence, or that their comment would change the outcome.
lsiebert 7y ago
My intention was to state that it was apparently a possibility under U.S. law, not to imply how likely that charge holding up in court would be. But he did shoot up a synagogue and light a mosque on fire, so it might not be too far fetched that he was incited to do so.