3 ms·

True threats are a distinct category that may sometimes overlap with hate speech. But those statements are illegal because they threaten immanent lawless actio

• Retric 3y ago
  True threats are someone saying the speaker will do something that’s believable. Ie, Someone claiming they are going to Nuke DC without a nuke fails the standard. Someone claiming they’re going to shoot you while holding a gun is. So it can be illegal hate speech by inciting people to act without being classified as a true threat. The triggers being inciting, specific, and immediate aren’t on their own illegal. I can suggest people go to Starbucks and get a coffee without issue.
  • Natsu 3y ago
    The part I was trying to get at is that under current law, true threats are their own category. Hate speech that is a true threat is illegal, due to being a true threat. Hate speech that is not a true threat is awful, but legal. So hate speech is not illegal for being hate speech, it's only illegal when it's also a true threat. And in that case it's illegal because it's a true threat. There's certainly plenty of overlap, but it doesn't help anyone's understanding of why it's illegal to lump them together or point out that speech can fit in more than one category when only one of the categories is illegal under current US jurisprudence.