3 ms·

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 wi

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.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
    As previously established, intent is a key element of incitement. When you say: > "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). You are immediately excluding lawlessness, which defeats the complete exercise of the test (unless you have additional context to provide, which validates Trump's mental state convincingly excludes unlawful behavior). The point of the test is to examine if there was intent for unlawful behavior. Again, that would transcend the text. We would have to place ourselves in Trump's mind, and examine further, and then create a compelling argument for or against mens rea.
  - eropple 6y ago
    There's a contextual history of Trump wishing violence on people: journalists, apprehended criminals, etc. -- it suggests, and it does not have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", that Trump is OK with having violence deployed against his enemies and that, with the context of speaking to a bunch of gun-toting reactionaries, he is speaking through a lens where the employment of their guns is thus reasonable. Further, in that speech quoted, Trump specifically says to his followers that Democrats should not be voting. This one ain't hard to parse.
    - radford-neal 6y ago
      Trump says of the Democrats, "They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote". In context, it clearly means that the Democrats never vote the way he wants them to, not that the Democrats shouldn't be allowed to vote. (Note he then goes on to talk about whether the weak Republicans will vote the way he wants them to.) I'm not aware that the demonstrators were toting guns. Really, give it up. If you want to argue that Trump incited violence in this speech, you need to find another quote from it in which he does. The one above is absolutely not incitement, as is completely clear to anyone who is not blinded by partisan rage. By the way, your country could do with less partisan rage right now.
      - eropple 6y ago
        "In context," when you remove Trump's say-the-quiet-part-loud advocacy of beating journalists and harming arrested criminals by bashing their heads off of the frames of cars while putting them into cruisers. And also ignore what he's said repeatedly in other speeches where he thinks he should be "given" another term and, oh right, where he straight-up mobster-ranted at Georgia's Secretary of State demanding he find him votes. Sorry dude. We don't play half-blind here for the sake of your argument. And if you want less "partisan rage"--well, plenty of the chumleys who stormed the Capitol are still at large, we can sure start there! Somehow, in comparison, I think me chuckling at Parler getting their just desserts doesn't even rate. ;)
asveikau 6y ago
Maybe there is some deniability in the Trump quote above. But didn't Giuliani, who is pretty close to him, call for "trial by combat"?

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.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  As previously established, intent is a key element of incitement. When you say: > "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). You are immediately excluding lawlessness, which defeats the complete exercise of the test (unless you have additional context to provide, which validates Trump's mental state convincingly excludes unlawful behavior). The point of the test is to examine if there was intent for unlawful behavior. Again, that would transcend the text. We would have to place ourselves in Trump's mind, and examine further, and then create a compelling argument for or against mens rea.
- eropple 6y ago
  There's a contextual history of Trump wishing violence on people: journalists, apprehended criminals, etc. -- it suggests, and it does not have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", that Trump is OK with having violence deployed against his enemies and that, with the context of speaking to a bunch of gun-toting reactionaries, he is speaking through a lens where the employment of their guns is thus reasonable. Further, in that speech quoted, Trump specifically says to his followers that Democrats should not be voting. This one ain't hard to parse.
  - radford-neal 6y ago
    Trump says of the Democrats, "They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote". In context, it clearly means that the Democrats never vote the way he wants them to, not that the Democrats shouldn't be allowed to vote. (Note he then goes on to talk about whether the weak Republicans will vote the way he wants them to.) I'm not aware that the demonstrators were toting guns. Really, give it up. If you want to argue that Trump incited violence in this speech, you need to find another quote from it in which he does. The one above is absolutely not incitement, as is completely clear to anyone who is not blinded by partisan rage. By the way, your country could do with less partisan rage right now.
    - eropple 6y ago
      "In context," when you remove Trump's say-the-quiet-part-loud advocacy of beating journalists and harming arrested criminals by bashing their heads off of the frames of cars while putting them into cruisers. And also ignore what he's said repeatedly in other speeches where he thinks he should be "given" another term and, oh right, where he straight-up mobster-ranted at Georgia's Secretary of State demanding he find him votes. Sorry dude. We don't play half-blind here for the sake of your argument. And if you want less "partisan rage"--well, plenty of the chumleys who stormed the Capitol are still at large, we can sure start there! Somehow, in comparison, I think me chuckling at Parler getting their just desserts doesn't even rate. ;)

asveikau 6y ago

Maybe there is some deniability in the Trump quote above. But didn't Giuliani, who is pretty close to him, call for "trial by combat"?