4 ms·
I find the phrase “incite violence” to be a deceptive term to use. A threat of violence is a very defined term. Both legally and in common understanding. “Incit
by imwillofficial 6y ago
I find the phrase “incite violence” to be a deceptive term to use.
A threat of violence is a very defined term. Both legally and in common understanding.
“Incites violence” is vague and takes the responsibility away from the one conducting violence, and places it on somebody else who may or may not have been promoting violence. It’s usage is not defined legally or in common usage.
“Barney is the worst dinosaur” could be “inciting violence” if somebody attacked the purple children’s mascot.
Should we have to mute ourselves because crazy people might use our words as justification for their madness?
Should others censor my opinions because in their opinion, a third party might use my words for justification for their madness?
- germinalphrase 6y ago“Incitement” has absolutely been defined legally by the US Supreme Court. See: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492
- imwillofficial 6y agoGreat find, thanks! The usage I’m seeing does not fit the below defined criteria: The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
- sanderjd 6y agoI personally believe the posts Amazon asked to have taken down meet the Brandenburg test, but note that Amazon is not beholden to apply the legal test, though I do believe it is a good starting point. Another reason to take things down is "glorification of terrorism", which I believe also applies to some of the posts.