7 ms·
This is a false dichotomy. If a leader publicly prods his followers to attack some one on FB or Twitter, should they stand back?
by abc_lisper 6y ago
This is a false dichotomy. If a leader publicly prods his followers to attack some one on FB or Twitter, should they stand back?
- kube-system 6y agoIf we're using the word "attack" to refer to a legal action, I think that is something that is very important for voters to be aware of.
- abc_lisper 6y agoNot legally, sticks and stones.
- the-dude 6y agoCalling for violence is illegal in The Netherlands if I recall correctly.
- kube-system 6y agoThen the speech is illegal and not an example of a reason the dichotomy would be false.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoYou can make a coherent argument that they shouldn't, but that would require much heavier censorship on Facebook's part than is present today. How many Facebook posts glorifying the looting were left up uncontroversially?
- dvt 6y agoThere's legal recourse for this (see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, among the many other SCOTUS rulings curbing free speech in special cases). Social media companies are not the arbiter, the courts are.
- Natsu 6y agoFighting words only apply to face-to-face speech and even then it's somewhat doubtful. If you want further analysis, look at some of Ken White's writings on it on Popehat. Incitement as defined by the Brandenburg test is more likely to apply.
- abc_lisper 6y agoI dont expect FB to be a arbiter, but in a more general sense, prevent harm done using the facility. Like a transport company to be held liable if someone is using them to mule drugs, or banks for money laundering.
- Natsu 6y agoThey should stop anyone who fails the Brandenburg test for incitement, but that's already illegal.