4 ms·
A lot of freedom of speech policies and preferences, including US criminal law, make exceptions for speech that is likely to incite imminent violence. Look up t
by jkaplowitz 6y ago
A lot of freedom of speech policies and preferences, including US criminal law, make exceptions for speech that is likely to incite imminent violence. Look up the "true threat" doctrine. I'm not surprised that HN sentiment has a similar exception.
- belorn 6y agoI am pretty sure US free speech exceptions do not prohibit threats by government to deploy the military against people, even if that is the very embodiment of a true threat that is likely to incite imminent violence. But HN community is not against that. You can have a news article about Nation X declaring intention to send an army to against Y if people think Y deserve it. People in general love violence and encourage it when it is the right kind of violence against the right target.
- jkaplowitz 6y agoYeah, most speech that relates to violence is neither illegal nor necessarily opposed by HN commenters (and of course plenty of us disagree with each other on what we want to tolerate). The exceptions are a lot narrower.
- loopz 6y agoTargeting own population with military is unconstitutional though, with just a few exceptions.
- belorn 6y agoWe can define Nation X as the US and Target Y as US citizen and go down different scenarios and see when it becomes the right kind of violence. A peaceful protest (this should be universally agreed on as a very bad target for military use). Rioters that burn cars and loot stores. White supremacists marching in the street. Exact same actions as any above but we call it terrorism. US citizens doing terrorism but which is indistinguishable from regular crime. US citizens doing terrorism, where military weapons like bombs are used (we could also split this up based on what reason the terrorist have).
- loopz 6y agoX=Y Target is not people, but actions in specific time and place. Measures need to be justified and scrutinized.
- belorn 6y agoWhen people talk treating everyone equal and banning speech that incite imminent violence, they don't talk about how they want exceptions when it is justified and scrutinized to incite imminent violence. What is justified is also very subjective, an aspect which a lot of people brings up in discussions. Who get to decide when violence is justified? Is it the people, and if so, how should should we count the votes?
- loopz 6y agoIt is not decided by direct democracy and not by dictatorship. If people involved are unable to act responsibly, they are the wrong people for the job.
- mrits 6y agoIf we didn't allow speech that might incite violence we'd still have slaves and women wouldn't have rights.
- jkaplowitz 6y agoAgreed. The true threat exception to the First Amendment, which can indeed lead to a legally and constitutionally valid criminal conviction in the US, is a lot narrower than "might incite violence".
- kinkrtyavimoodh 6y agoPeople were also upset at FB for not censoring Trump's post about mail-in voting. What imminent violence was it about to cause?
- jkaplowitz 6y agoI can't speak to that one. I wouldn't want that one censored.