5 ms·

> My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence It sounds very easy when you speak in the abstract. I could tell you a dozen examples w

> My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence It sounds very easy when you speak in the abstract. I could tell you a dozen examples where you can argue for both sides, and what your conclusion will be will depend on what the media says and whether or not you like the person they "persecute" and vilify. AOC said "Are you all ready to make a ruckus? Are you all ready to fight for our rights?". "Oh no, those are fighting words, they incite violence". Would you like ban her from all platforms? What happens to people without a party? A recent trend on the progressive left was the #ForceTheVote to ask the AOC, squad and the progressive wing of the party to withhold their vote for Nancy Pelosi's speakership in exchange for a vote on M4All (the thing they've run on, "but now is not the time"). Should they all be banned because they want to "force" the vote? "Hold your representatives feet to the fire"? Do I want to literally do that and burn them alive? Or I want to keep them accountable? "Heads on pikes"? Do I want to behead them, or I want them to lose their position and I want them to get fired? What if I get frustrated at a party, and I say "the gloves are off" and decide to run against them? "Oh no, he said 'gloves are off', he wants to be beat up the congressman/congresswoman. Silence him!". What if I say, "I'm going to destroy them". Obviously, I was speaking in the political sense, but if enough people on cable say the opposite, you'll never believe me. The point is that there are usually hundreds of ways to frame something. If you didn't hear the context, and you only see the 5 seconds soundbite, you'll believe it's justified. You also won't look into it, because "why would you protect an aggressor? the clip was clear, he/she threatened people with violence". FYI: I brought examples from the left so that people understand that almost every person who has given an energetic speech can be framed as "violent" and in the future can be shut down (if the power dynamics change). I used American examples, as the two-party system is simpler as a multiparty system and most people are familiar with the things that happen in the US. The same would be true in other countries, though.

kelnos 6y ago
I get what you're trying to do here, but I don't think it really worked. The examples you provided are obviously not incitements to violence. If someone wants to twist those words to get us to believe they are, we can look at the facts on the ground: no one became violent because of those words. (Of course that's not possible when you're judging speech immediately after it's said and don't have hindsight.) On the flip side, quite a bit of violence did occur on the 6th; the speech that got us there was pretty clearly intended to get us there.
- serial_dev 6y ago
  It's a thread about an article on Parler. I'm talking about that. Was "the speech that got us there" by Parler?
- concordDance 6y ago
  > The examples you provided are obviously not incitements to violence. They are more obviously incitements to violence than a post saying they won't be attending the inauguration. At this point it becomes mostly about what your model of the person speaking is. If you think they are evil you will interpret their intent and communication as evil and if you think they are good you will interpret it as good. There is no possible methodology that can be used that will end up declaring Trump's comments incitement while declaring AOC's not to be that won't end up becoming become simple partisanship.
  - theelous3 6y ago
    But in reality we all know why he's not attending, and it isn't because his mom can't drive him or he didn't buy tickets. Context is king, as always.
jjeaff 6y ago
The fiery calls to "fight" are not the problem. It is the "this election was stolen from us", rigged election, etc. without any evidence. And what's more, saying those things after courts have shut them down and rejected them. If you make such grave accusations without proof, you are guilty of inciting what results. If you see smoke and yell fire in a crowded room and people are trampled trying to get out, fine. If you yell fire in a crowded room with no evidence, and people get trampled, you are culpable. Even if you said "remain calm and peaceful" after you yelled fire.
- oceanplexian 6y ago
  A few of those arguments don't require evidence, since they were matters of law vs. matters of fact. One of the arguments made was that laws passed by legislatures weren't followed, for example the deadline for mail-in ballots in PA, which was extended until 5 P.M on November 5 even though the law on the books is explicit that ballots postmarked after election day were invalid. The fact that a court upheld the view in contradiction with fairly plain language of the law caused some controversy. The above doesn't mean "The election was stolen". It doesn't mean it would have turned out differently. But I think there is some room for debate. Even though Trump is aggrandizing the issue politicians do that all the time and aren't de-platformed for it.
  - p1318820 6y ago
    The deadline for mail-in ballots was not based on delivery time, it was based on postmark time. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with a ballot arriving after 5PM November 5th, so long as it was postmarked before the cutoff. So the laws were followed, no contradiction, just a selective lack of understanding by a group of bad actors.
- thewindowmovie5 6y ago
  I was able to sympathise with BLM protesters because of the incidents of the past and also comparing police presence in capitol during the priest of BLM and MAGA goons. In case of MAGA goons, despites courts, a lot of which were conservative judges, and the republicans themselves not finding any evidence of election fraud which would change the result of election, they continue to try to overturn the result with force. They are acting in bad faith. The fact that more than 70 million people support this is the chilling part.
theelous3 6y ago
These examples are a joke though. No reasonable person thinks "the gloves are off" or "destroy them" coming from AOC is violent intent. A reasonable person could reasonably interpret endlessly repeated claims that some liberal cabal is literally overthrowing the government and that America will actually die without immediate action, followed by violence that isn't condemned, mixed with blatant encouragement of violent action, with a long history of identical behavior, as violent. Your examples might work in a vacuum where the reader has no knowledge of common english terms, any cultural context for the language, or any context about who the speaker is (though even then I think the obvious difference would be detected).
- dash2 6y ago
  Suppose Trump had said "the gloves are off" and "destroy them" in his speech? Would that count as inciting violence or not?
  - theelous3 6y ago
    I don't think "the gloves are off" can be an incitement of violence im any context at all. Even a violent one. It only means "it is time to increase the intensity of my efforts in this context". That context could be a fight or a colouring book competition. The term is origin agnostic and nothing to do with boxing. If he said "destroy them" as people are out destroying things, yes obviously. Or if he's been ranting about stolen elections and fraud and calling for action. If he said "fight them, in the polls | marketplace of ideas! Destroy them!" or something then obviously not. Trying to pretend any of this is like, too ambiguous to really make a call on, is a joke. Anybody can spot the difference.
  - btown 6y ago
    There is actually a test for incitement set out in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio - the standard is whether speech is likely to produce imminent lawless action. Here, the question is whether a rational person in Trump’s position could have known that directing people to the capital and telling them illegal activity was going on inside are likely to promote specific lawless action at that destination, regardless of the specific words used or whether the type of violence is specified. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/01/08/a-civilian-s-guide-to-insurrection-legalese https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/01/08/a-civilian-s-g... has a larger primer.
hahla 6y ago
The context of the speech, the person speaking the words and the people listening to them all matter.

kelnos 6y ago

I get what you're trying to do here, but I don't think it really worked. The examples you provided are obviously not incitements to violence. If someone wants to twist those words to get us to believe they are, we can look at the facts on the ground: no one became violent because of those words. (Of course that's not possible when you're judging speech immediately after it's said and don't have hindsight.) On the flip side, quite a bit of violence did occur on the 6th; the speech that got us there was pretty clearly intended to get us there.

serial_dev 6y ago
It's a thread about an article on Parler. I'm talking about that. Was "the speech that got us there" by Parler?
concordDance 6y ago
> The examples you provided are obviously not incitements to violence. They are more obviously incitements to violence than a post saying they won't be attending the inauguration. At this point it becomes mostly about what your model of the person speaking is. If you think they are evil you will interpret their intent and communication as evil and if you think they are good you will interpret it as good. There is no possible methodology that can be used that will end up declaring Trump's comments incitement while declaring AOC's not to be that won't end up becoming become simple partisanship.
- theelous3 6y ago
  But in reality we all know why he's not attending, and it isn't because his mom can't drive him or he didn't buy tickets. Context is king, as always.

jjeaff 6y ago

The fiery calls to "fight" are not the problem. It is the "this election was stolen from us", rigged election, etc. without any evidence. And what's more, saying those things after courts have shut them down and rejected them. If you make such grave accusations without proof, you are guilty of inciting what results. If you see smoke and yell fire in a crowded room and people are trampled trying to get out, fine. If you yell fire in a crowded room with no evidence, and people get trampled, you are culpable. Even if you said "remain calm and peaceful" after you yelled fire.

oceanplexian 6y ago
A few of those arguments don't require evidence, since they were matters of law vs. matters of fact. One of the arguments made was that laws passed by legislatures weren't followed, for example the deadline for mail-in ballots in PA, which was extended until 5 P.M on November 5 even though the law on the books is explicit that ballots postmarked after election day were invalid. The fact that a court upheld the view in contradiction with fairly plain language of the law caused some controversy. The above doesn't mean "The election was stolen". It doesn't mean it would have turned out differently. But I think there is some room for debate. Even though Trump is aggrandizing the issue politicians do that all the time and aren't de-platformed for it.
- p1318820 6y ago
  The deadline for mail-in ballots was not based on delivery time, it was based on postmark time. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with a ballot arriving after 5PM November 5th, so long as it was postmarked before the cutoff. So the laws were followed, no contradiction, just a selective lack of understanding by a group of bad actors.
thewindowmovie5 6y ago
I was able to sympathise with BLM protesters because of the incidents of the past and also comparing police presence in capitol during the priest of BLM and MAGA goons. In case of MAGA goons, despites courts, a lot of which were conservative judges, and the republicans themselves not finding any evidence of election fraud which would change the result of election, they continue to try to overturn the result with force. They are acting in bad faith. The fact that more than 70 million people support this is the chilling part.

theelous3 6y ago

These examples are a joke though. No reasonable person thinks "the gloves are off" or "destroy them" coming from AOC is violent intent. A reasonable person could reasonably interpret endlessly repeated claims that some liberal cabal is literally overthrowing the government and that America will actually die without immediate action, followed by violence that isn't condemned, mixed with blatant encouragement of violent action, with a long history of identical behavior, as violent. Your examples might work in a vacuum where the reader has no knowledge of common english terms, any cultural context for the language, or any context about who the speaker is (though even then I think the obvious difference would be detected).

dash2 6y ago
Suppose Trump had said "the gloves are off" and "destroy them" in his speech? Would that count as inciting violence or not?
- theelous3 6y ago
  I don't think "the gloves are off" can be an incitement of violence im any context at all. Even a violent one. It only means "it is time to increase the intensity of my efforts in this context". That context could be a fight or a colouring book competition. The term is origin agnostic and nothing to do with boxing. If he said "destroy them" as people are out destroying things, yes obviously. Or if he's been ranting about stolen elections and fraud and calling for action. If he said "fight them, in the polls | marketplace of ideas! Destroy them!" or something then obviously not. Trying to pretend any of this is like, too ambiguous to really make a call on, is a joke. Anybody can spot the difference.
- btown 6y ago
  There is actually a test for incitement set out in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio - the standard is whether speech is likely to produce imminent lawless action. Here, the question is whether a rational person in Trump’s position could have known that directing people to the capital and telling them illegal activity was going on inside are likely to promote specific lawless action at that destination, regardless of the specific words used or whether the type of violence is specified. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/01/08/a-civilian-s-guide-to-insurrection-legalese https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/01/08/a-civilian-s-g... has a larger primer.

hahla 6y ago

The context of the speech, the person speaking the words and the people listening to them all matter.