4 ms·

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 cou

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.
- matwood 6y ago
  You may disagree, but the source and context do matter. If I say 'we should nuke the moon' people laugh and move on. If Trump says it's a completely different thing. Trump spent years peddling lies and conspiracy theories, and getting right up to the incite violence line. His attempts to keep white nationalist on his side, by repeatedly having to be prodded to denounce them after showing some weird support is a problem. So yeah, if he said those things, it absolutely would count and may not count with someone else.

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.
matwood 6y ago
You may disagree, but the source and context do matter. If I say 'we should nuke the moon' people laugh and move on. If Trump says it's a completely different thing. Trump spent years peddling lies and conspiracy theories, and getting right up to the incite violence line. His attempts to keep white nationalist on his side, by repeatedly having to be prodded to denounce them after showing some weird support is a problem. So yeah, if he said those things, it absolutely would count and may not count with someone else.