4 ms·

This is what Trump said during his January 6th speech: "So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re

This is what Trump said during his January 6th speech: "So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."

throwaway201103 6y ago
What does this sound like to you? Are you reading "storm the Capitol" in those words?
- sigotirandolas 6y ago
  I also don't see anything particularly damning in those words, it seems usual Trump gibberish. But then, even before he announced the march ("Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!"), many of his hardcore followers were already waiting for him to say something, anything that they could interpret as a coordinated action (all the "cross the rubicon" talk). So I'd say that this is not just a matter of taking some isolated phrases, but rather looking at the whole context of all that happened before, during and after the election and asking the question "To which degree was he consciously contributing to create and direct this climate that caused criminal action?"
  - mcot2 6y ago
    The only parallel is how a Mob boss speaks.
    - sigotirandolas 6y ago
      Yeah, don't interpret my comment as a belief that Trump was unaware and didn't know anything could happen. You would need to be dumb to believe that, for example, he didn't know anything about the Proud Boys or QAnon as he claimed.
radford-neal 6y ago
I'm not sure what your point is in quoting this. It very clearly is not incitement to violence. The objective he describes for the demonstration is that it will help convince legislators to vote the way he wants them to, by showing that lots of people feel the way he does. Being able to engage in such demonstrations is absolutely at the core of political freedom. Perhaps that was the point you were trying to make, of course.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  Whether or not speech constitutes incitement is governed by the imminent lawless action test. "Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely." [0] There's two sub-tests: intention and imminence. Let's start with was it imminent: the plain text is clear, the time was now-- undoubtedly, the call to action was not an obscure point in the future. Supporters were to immediately go down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol complex. But what was Trump's intention? That analysis transcends the text as written. Therefore, we can't outright dismiss the speech as categorically not incitement, because the text alone is not sufficient in determining if the speech is incitement. I posted his speech because my original comment's parent poster claimed Trump had not suggested his supporters make their way to the Capitol, which is false. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
  - radford-neal 6y ago
    I don't see how any context can possibly make the quoted passage incitement to lawless action, because the text itself describes the objective and method - persuade legislators to vote a certain way by "giv[ing] them the kind of pride and boldness they need" (not by intimidating them with threats of violence, which would of course be illegal). I'm not familiar with the geography of Washington D.C., but "walk down Pennsylvania Avenue" does not seem to me to be the same as "storm the Capital building". Now, I suppose it's possible that some other part of the speech actually did incite violence, but if this is the worst part, it is not incitement to violence. Not. At. All.

throwaway201103 6y ago

What does this sound like to you? Are you reading "storm the Capitol" in those words?

sigotirandolas 6y ago
I also don't see anything particularly damning in those words, it seems usual Trump gibberish. But then, even before he announced the march ("Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!"), many of his hardcore followers were already waiting for him to say something, anything that they could interpret as a coordinated action (all the "cross the rubicon" talk). So I'd say that this is not just a matter of taking some isolated phrases, but rather looking at the whole context of all that happened before, during and after the election and asking the question "To which degree was he consciously contributing to create and direct this climate that caused criminal action?"
- mcot2 6y ago
  The only parallel is how a Mob boss speaks.
  - sigotirandolas 6y ago
    Yeah, don't interpret my comment as a belief that Trump was unaware and didn't know anything could happen. You would need to be dumb to believe that, for example, he didn't know anything about the Proud Boys or QAnon as he claimed.

radford-neal 6y ago

I'm not sure what your point is in quoting this. It very clearly is not incitement to violence. The objective he describes for the demonstration is that it will help convince legislators to vote the way he wants them to, by showing that lots of people feel the way he does. Being able to engage in such demonstrations is absolutely at the core of political freedom. Perhaps that was the point you were trying to make, of course.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
Whether or not speech constitutes incitement is governed by the imminent lawless action test. "Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely." [0] There's two sub-tests: intention and imminence. Let's start with was it imminent: the plain text is clear, the time was now-- undoubtedly, the call to action was not an obscure point in the future. Supporters were to immediately go down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol complex. But what was Trump's intention? That analysis transcends the text as written. Therefore, we can't outright dismiss the speech as categorically not incitement, because the text alone is not sufficient in determining if the speech is incitement. I posted his speech because my original comment's parent poster claimed Trump had not suggested his supporters make their way to the Capitol, which is false. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
- radford-neal 6y ago
  I don't see how any context can possibly make the quoted passage incitement to lawless action, because the text itself describes the objective and method - persuade legislators to vote a certain way by "giv[ing] them the kind of pride and boldness they need" (not by intimidating them with threats of violence, which would of course be illegal). I'm not familiar with the geography of Washington D.C., but "walk down Pennsylvania Avenue" does not seem to me to be the same as "storm the Capital building". Now, I suppose it's possible that some other part of the speech actually did incite violence, but if this is the worst part, it is not incitement to violence. Not. At. All.