4 ms·

> I personally fall on the "maximal free speech" side of preferences. If an ISIS video isn't calling for imminent lawless action [2], then I don't want YouTube

> I personally fall on the "maximal free speech" side of preferences. If an ISIS video isn't calling for imminent lawless action [2], then I don't want YouTube deleting it. An online video is almost by definition incapable of being incitement to imminent lawless action. The threshold for this magic phrase is roughly along the lines of leading a mob and saying "there is <member of outgroup>, lynch them." Pretty much anything short of that is constitutionally-protected free speech under the First Amendment, and it's virtually impossible for an internet video to be sufficiently imminent for the purposes of incitement to imminent lawless action.

philipkglass 3y ago
Interesting, I didn't realize that the "imminent" component disqualified recordings. I would have thought that an exhortation to do something lawless as soon as you hear the message would count. Something like "Here's the home address of a Senator who called for military action against the Islamic State -- go burn his house down now!"
- jcranmer 3y ago
  > I would have thought that an exhortation to do something lawless as soon as you hear the message would count. That is almost literally the opposite of what Brandenburg v Ohio held! (Many people tend to do this: they assume that the phraseology is meant to limit speech along the lines of Schenck v US or Whitney v California, what is now known as the "clear and present danger" standard, which is what Brandenburg v Ohio was explicitly overturning.) Brandenburg v Ohio held that advocating violent overthrow of the government is free speech, but you need the very direct link between the speech and the illegal actions for the speech to become illegal. The emphasis in "incitement to imminent lawless action" of Brandenburg is meant to be "imminent", and later court cases have generally held that "imminent" is meant to be read in very short timespans.

philipkglass 3y ago

Interesting, I didn't realize that the "imminent" component disqualified recordings. I would have thought that an exhortation to do something lawless as soon as you hear the message would count. Something like "Here's the home address of a Senator who called for military action against the Islamic State -- go burn his house down now!"

jcranmer 3y ago
> I would have thought that an exhortation to do something lawless as soon as you hear the message would count. That is almost literally the opposite of what Brandenburg v Ohio held! (Many people tend to do this: they assume that the phraseology is meant to limit speech along the lines of Schenck v US or Whitney v California, what is now known as the "clear and present danger" standard, which is what Brandenburg v Ohio was explicitly overturning.) Brandenburg v Ohio held that advocating violent overthrow of the government is free speech, but you need the very direct link between the speech and the illegal actions for the speech to become illegal. The emphasis in "incitement to imminent lawless action" of Brandenburg is meant to be "imminent", and later court cases have generally held that "imminent" is meant to be read in very short timespans.