6 ms·

> consider that someone with millions of followers is basically planning acts of violence with a retweet So by your standard, would https://twitter.com/rezaasl

by MikeUt 6y ago

> consider that someone with millions of followers is basically planning acts of violence with a retweet So by your standard, would https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330 https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330 count as planning acts of violence, or would he need more followers first, since he's not at "millions" yet?

inerte 6y ago
Oh my god! You got me, bro! You’re so smart.
- MikeUt 6y ago
  Let me be more direct - how do you think these powers of restriction on "influencing people" you want, will be used by an administration you don't want? Do you think there might be some foreign countries where such powers are already in place, that could give us a clue how things might turn out, or is America too much of a unique exception to be able to learn from anyone else's experience?
  - danudey 6y ago
    I would think that context is also important. Tweeting "burn the whole thing down" to a generally liberal crowd is a figure of speech which implies, by and large, the need for complete reform. To far-right "conservatives", white supremacists, violent insurrectionists, and paranoid militias, it implies something completely different. In other words, someone tweeting "burn the whole thing down" to a liberal following in regards to a judicial appointment is a very different thing from Trump or other far-right "influencers" tweeting "burn the whole thing down" to a large and frequently violent crowd in regards to their false claims of stolen elections, because it's reasonable to assume that people upset about the replacement of RBG aren't going to literally burn down the capitol, whereas it's clear that a (small but sufficiently significant) subset of Trump followers were not only willing to, but able to and intent on, burning down the Capitol in response to the false stolen election claims.
    - haberman 6y ago
      There has been plenty of liberal, non-figurative burning down just in the last year. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/may/31/george-floyd-protests-latest-news-riots-us-cities-donald-trump-police-brutality-live https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/may/31/george-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/28/minneapolis-protests-george-floyd-death/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/28/minneapolis... https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/police-declare-riot-portland-amid-ongoing-protests-72463294 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/police-declare-riot-... https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fire-chief-damage-kenosha-unrest-tops-11-million-73049162 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fire-chief-damage-kenosh... Codifying a double-standard of when it's "reasonable to assume" that certain threats are figurative based on political orientation of the speaker is just the kind of thing that pours fuel on the fire.
- MrPatan 6y ago
  But which one is it? I'm not smart, I'd like you to spell it out.
myWindoonn 6y ago
It's not quite a plan, is it? Like, what exactly are they asking people to burn? "It"? And it's not necessarily advocating violence, either; while arson is terrible and destructive, it is not necessarily violence against people. It's pretty well short of actually calling people to violent acts. The wording would need to be more specific.
- MikeUt 6y ago
  I hope the judge in my trial will be as charitable in their interpretation of my words, as you are to Reza Aslan's.
  - myWindoonn 6y ago
    Sure; they'd probably apply strict scrutiny [0]. In the USA, speech is typically protected by default; the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that the speech was harmful. Seriously, have you never heard an angry American yell that they are frustrated with the status quo and would like to "burn it down" [1]? It is a common refrain and generally taken as a hyperbolic statement about the speaker's dissatisfaction with the actions of the government. Finally, if you're in the USA, you have the right to a trial by jury if you're accused of crimes [2]; you do not need to worry that some appointed judge will find your speech harmful, but rather that a panel of your peers will unanimously agree that your speech is harmful. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_It_Down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_It_Down [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
    - MikeUt 6y ago
      You're discussing law as it currently stands, while the original poster proposed changing the law.
      - myWindoonn 6y ago
        To what end are you arguing? Do you honestly think that the 6th Amendment will be repealed, or that strict scrutiny will suddenly not be applied when appropriate? (I suspect that this entire comment thread was started in order to try to pull a rhetorical gotcha, and you didn't actually expect somebody to respond to your words as written, but hopefully you've learned some constitutional law on this beautiful sunny MLK Jr. Day.)
pjc50 6y ago
Well, this is the thing isn't it, threats of nonspecific violence are a normal part of American politics. You could find thousands of examples of that kind of thing from both sides. The unusual thing is turning that violence into reality. Would it be great to dial that down? Yes. Will the Republicans stop doing enraging things and calm the situation? No.

by MikeUt 6y ago

inerte 6y ago

Oh my god! You got me, bro! You’re so smart.

MikeUt 6y ago
Let me be more direct - how do you think these powers of restriction on "influencing people" you want, will be used by an administration you don't want? Do you think there might be some foreign countries where such powers are already in place, that could give us a clue how things might turn out, or is America too much of a unique exception to be able to learn from anyone else's experience?
- danudey 6y ago
  I would think that context is also important. Tweeting "burn the whole thing down" to a generally liberal crowd is a figure of speech which implies, by and large, the need for complete reform. To far-right "conservatives", white supremacists, violent insurrectionists, and paranoid militias, it implies something completely different. In other words, someone tweeting "burn the whole thing down" to a liberal following in regards to a judicial appointment is a very different thing from Trump or other far-right "influencers" tweeting "burn the whole thing down" to a large and frequently violent crowd in regards to their false claims of stolen elections, because it's reasonable to assume that people upset about the replacement of RBG aren't going to literally burn down the capitol, whereas it's clear that a (small but sufficiently significant) subset of Trump followers were not only willing to, but able to and intent on, burning down the Capitol in response to the false stolen election claims.
  - haberman 6y ago
    There has been plenty of liberal, non-figurative burning down just in the last year. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/may/31/george-floyd-protests-latest-news-riots-us-cities-donald-trump-police-brutality-live https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/may/31/george-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/28/minneapolis-protests-george-floyd-death/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/28/minneapolis... https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/police-declare-riot-portland-amid-ongoing-protests-72463294 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/police-declare-riot-... https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fire-chief-damage-kenosha-unrest-tops-11-million-73049162 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fire-chief-damage-kenosh... Codifying a double-standard of when it's "reasonable to assume" that certain threats are figurative based on political orientation of the speaker is just the kind of thing that pours fuel on the fire.
MrPatan 6y ago
But which one is it? I'm not smart, I'd like you to spell it out.

myWindoonn 6y ago

It's not quite a plan, is it? Like, what exactly are they asking people to burn? "It"? And it's not necessarily advocating violence, either; while arson is terrible and destructive, it is not necessarily violence against people. It's pretty well short of actually calling people to violent acts. The wording would need to be more specific.

MikeUt 6y ago
I hope the judge in my trial will be as charitable in their interpretation of my words, as you are to Reza Aslan's.
- myWindoonn 6y ago
  Sure; they'd probably apply strict scrutiny [0]. In the USA, speech is typically protected by default; the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that the speech was harmful. Seriously, have you never heard an angry American yell that they are frustrated with the status quo and would like to "burn it down" [1]? It is a common refrain and generally taken as a hyperbolic statement about the speaker's dissatisfaction with the actions of the government. Finally, if you're in the USA, you have the right to a trial by jury if you're accused of crimes [2]; you do not need to worry that some appointed judge will find your speech harmful, but rather that a panel of your peers will unanimously agree that your speech is harmful. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_It_Down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_It_Down [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
  - MikeUt 6y ago
    You're discussing law as it currently stands, while the original poster proposed changing the law.
    - myWindoonn 6y ago
      To what end are you arguing? Do you honestly think that the 6th Amendment will be repealed, or that strict scrutiny will suddenly not be applied when appropriate? (I suspect that this entire comment thread was started in order to try to pull a rhetorical gotcha, and you didn't actually expect somebody to respond to your words as written, but hopefully you've learned some constitutional law on this beautiful sunny MLK Jr. Day.)

pjc50 6y ago

Well, this is the thing isn't it, threats of nonspecific violence are a normal part of American politics. You could find thousands of examples of that kind of thing from both sides. The unusual thing is turning that violence into reality. Would it be great to dial that down? Yes. Will the Republicans stop doing enraging things and calm the situation? No.