3 ms·
“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/brandenb
by 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.