3 ms·

- "I do still want to find out whether there is a separate legal concept for that kind of indirect encouragement or negligence (depending on the intent of sayin

- "I do still want to find out whether there is a separate legal concept for that kind of indirect encouragement or negligence (depending on the intent of saying it anyway)." That's the main relevance of Brandenburg: that ruling decided that things that fall short of its test are constitutionally protected free speech. It holds [0] "speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment unless the speech is likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”". That's the answer to your "indirect encouragement or negligence" question: if it encourages violence, and if it falls short of Brandenburg's test, then it is lawful. Encouragement or advocacy of violence is generally lawful. [0] https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-ohio https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg...

anigbrowl 3y ago
All absolutely correct, but the other poster has a point. It kinds depends on how one reads 'likely'. A rudimentary analysis from year suggested that that the probability of harassment (not all of which would be illegal) following tweets about specific institutions is in the 20-25% range: https://rpubs.com/TaskForceButler/984347 https://rpubs.com/TaskForceButler/984347 The probability of actual criminal threats is much lower, perhaps 3-5%. My understanding that LibsofTiktok has a little over 1m followers, but plenty of e-celebs have comparable followings without being associated to such problematic behavior.
- perihelions 3y ago
  - "It kinds depends on how one reads 'likely'." Well, I understand it's "directed to... and likely to...", and that first test is necessary. Rhetoric that isn't directed towards causing lawlessness, but has a tendency to do so anyway, is protected.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
If there's a history of such speech inciting imminent lawless action, then can't we say that such speech incites imminent lawless action? So if you have a forum, where certain kinds of statements on that forum usually/often cause very quick lawless action, can't you say that such statements on that forum are not constitutionally protected free speech? Or is that not a valid application of Brandenburg?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

anigbrowl 3y ago

All absolutely correct, but the other poster has a point. It kinds depends on how one reads 'likely'. A rudimentary analysis from year suggested that that the probability of harassment (not all of which would be illegal) following tweets about specific institutions is in the 20-25% range: https://rpubs.com/TaskForceButler/984347 https://rpubs.com/TaskForceButler/984347 The probability of actual criminal threats is much lower, perhaps 3-5%. My understanding that LibsofTiktok has a little over 1m followers, but plenty of e-celebs have comparable followings without being associated to such problematic behavior.

perihelions 3y ago
- "It kinds depends on how one reads 'likely'." Well, I understand it's "directed to... and likely to...", and that first test is necessary. Rhetoric that isn't directed towards causing lawlessness, but has a tendency to do so anyway, is protected.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

If there's a history of such speech inciting imminent lawless action, then can't we say that such speech incites imminent lawless action? So if you have a forum, where certain kinds of statements on that forum usually/often cause very quick lawless action, can't you say that such statements on that forum are not constitutionally protected free speech? Or is that not a valid application of Brandenburg?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]