3 ms·
Seems like the kind of thing a jury of your peers could decide. Kind of like what happened in this case. It also bears mentioning that the gulf between "it's g
by AlexandrB 4y ago
Seems like the kind of thing a jury of your peers could decide. Kind of like what happened in this case.
It also bears mentioning that the gulf between "it's going to rain" and "the parents of murdered children are actually 'deep-state' actors aiding a conspiracy to take away your rights" is vast.
- donatj 4y agoNeither contains a call to action.
- AlexandrB 4y agoI don't think that's a great standard. For example if I consistently call a group of people subhuman and vermin that should not exist I may not have a call to action but the ideology I'm promoting is pretty clear. It's not unreasonable to hold me accountable when a member of my audience decides to attack an individual from the group I'm dehumanizing. Nor is it unreasonable for a member of that group to sue me. And again, the grey areas here seem like the kind of thing that a jury is able to decide. Alex wasn't found guilty by executive order from the president.
- donatj 4y agoI think it's entirely unreasonable. Having a horrible opinion is a million miles away from telling people to do horrible things. Prosecuting people for opinions is the literal opposite of what a liberal democracy should be doing.