4 ms·

That is not protected speech. The 'attack' is the keyword. Therefore, supremacist groups typically say "<oarabbus_'s ethnicity> is destroying <oarabbus_'s count

That is not protected speech. The 'attack' is the keyword. Therefore, supremacist groups typically say "<oarabbus_'s ethnicity> is destroying <oarabbus_'s country of residence>" which is legal. They're just connecting the dots the only way they know how.

rjf72 7y ago
Yes, it is. The nuance he was intentionally illustrating is the basis of our entire law. The one key exception to freedom of speech is speech that will, with high certainty, provoke "imminent lawless action." And this is something that is interpreted in the most literal and conservative fashion possible. In his former statement he has a specific target, time, and location. It is extremely likely that his behavior will result in imminent unlawful action. By contrast condemning a large group lacks any specificity and is, in and of itself, not likely to suddenly drive any specific unlawful action.
- afiori 7y ago
  Obviously the only relevant opinion is that of a judge, but... nope. I would say 'Let's kill <ethnicity>' as a standalone statement is illegal in every western country.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rjf72 7y ago
    Issues similar to this have been brought up in the courts many times, and they almost invariably (sexual obscenity is one exception) yield lopsided results in favor of the 'offender.' One random recent case is Elonis vs the United States [1]. Elonis made statements online suggesting a desire to kill his estranged wife, later on kindergarten children, and then after that an FBI agent that had visited him in relation to the threat against children. He claimed it was art and he was only expressing himself and not attempting to threaten or intimidate the individuals/groups in question, even though he was aware they would likely interpret it as threats. This is really a million times more threatening that some vague expression against an ethnicity. The supreme court ruled 8-1 in his favor. The US Supreme Court is extremely supportive of free speech, including the most detestable. As an aside the links on the scotusblog are extremely high quality and provide lots of plain language analysis of the technical points. A phenomenal resource for any case or issue you're ever interested in learning about the legal nuances behind. For instance this [2] is their coverage of the 'gay cake' case. [1] - https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-... [2] - https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cake...
    - afiori 7y ago
      > He claimed it was art and he was only expressing himself and not attempting to threaten or intimidate the individuals/groups in question, even though he was aware they would likely interpret it as threats. This is really a million times more threatening that some vague expression against an ethnicity. The supreme court ruled 8-1 in his favor. The US Supreme Court is extremely supportive of free speech, including the most detestable. In this context it was not indeed a standalone statement. from the wikipedia page indeed his statements are quite general and in a sense artistic. He did not argue for killing his ex-wife, there is no reading where he could encourage others to kill his ex-wife. He really had a wish for it and was talking about it. From what is reported in the wikipedia article even something like "I think it is a good idea to kill my ex-wife" would have been too much.
  - pyuser583 7y ago
    In America, it’s protected.
    - afiori 7y ago
      the "Let's" part is literally an encouragement. Surely it can be made legal (e.g. by obvious irony). In a case like Elonis v. United States the defense was that the statements where more of "I have a wish to kill X" instead of "I/you/we/they should kill X".
      - pyuser583 7y ago
        I’m sure you can come up with some situation where it’s not protected.

rjf72 7y ago

Yes, it is. The nuance he was intentionally illustrating is the basis of our entire law. The one key exception to freedom of speech is speech that will, with high certainty, provoke "imminent lawless action." And this is something that is interpreted in the most literal and conservative fashion possible. In his former statement he has a specific target, time, and location. It is extremely likely that his behavior will result in imminent unlawful action. By contrast condemning a large group lacks any specificity and is, in and of itself, not likely to suddenly drive any specific unlawful action.

afiori 7y ago
Obviously the only relevant opinion is that of a judge, but... nope. I would say 'Let's kill <ethnicity>' as a standalone statement is illegal in every western country.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rjf72 7y ago
  Issues similar to this have been brought up in the courts many times, and they almost invariably (sexual obscenity is one exception) yield lopsided results in favor of the 'offender.' One random recent case is Elonis vs the United States [1]. Elonis made statements online suggesting a desire to kill his estranged wife, later on kindergarten children, and then after that an FBI agent that had visited him in relation to the threat against children. He claimed it was art and he was only expressing himself and not attempting to threaten or intimidate the individuals/groups in question, even though he was aware they would likely interpret it as threats. This is really a million times more threatening that some vague expression against an ethnicity. The supreme court ruled 8-1 in his favor. The US Supreme Court is extremely supportive of free speech, including the most detestable. As an aside the links on the scotusblog are extremely high quality and provide lots of plain language analysis of the technical points. A phenomenal resource for any case or issue you're ever interested in learning about the legal nuances behind. For instance this [2] is their coverage of the 'gay cake' case. [1] - https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-... [2] - https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cake...
  - afiori 7y ago
    > He claimed it was art and he was only expressing himself and not attempting to threaten or intimidate the individuals/groups in question, even though he was aware they would likely interpret it as threats. This is really a million times more threatening that some vague expression against an ethnicity. The supreme court ruled 8-1 in his favor. The US Supreme Court is extremely supportive of free speech, including the most detestable. In this context it was not indeed a standalone statement. from the wikipedia page indeed his statements are quite general and in a sense artistic. He did not argue for killing his ex-wife, there is no reading where he could encourage others to kill his ex-wife. He really had a wish for it and was talking about it. From what is reported in the wikipedia article even something like "I think it is a good idea to kill my ex-wife" would have been too much.
- pyuser583 7y ago
  In America, it’s protected.
  - afiori 7y ago
    the "Let's" part is literally an encouragement. Surely it can be made legal (e.g. by obvious irony). In a case like Elonis v. United States the defense was that the statements where more of "I have a wish to kill X" instead of "I/you/we/they should kill X".
    - pyuser583 7y ago
      I’m sure you can come up with some situation where it’s not protected.