8 ms·

Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ?

by avip 2y ago

DEADMINCE 2y ago
If worded in a way to prevent outright calls to violence, then yes.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  Um. Had cops show up at the home of a child that was on a sports team of my daughter's. They were looking for her brother and took him in. Afterwards we spoke more to her mother and found out that users in game forums had told him he could make these kinds of comments and it was free speech as long it wasn't a call to violence. Well I don't know the legalities, but I do know he was never welcome back at that school. (Nor even in the district for that matter.) Worse, the neighboring district got word, and they implemented their own machinations to ensure he was effectively banned from there as well. In the end, they sent him to live with relatives. I wouldn't be so cavalier about telling people they can say things like this. It's like, well you can say anything. But if you say things that make oblique suggestions towards violence, expect to watched from that point on. And excluded from any activities that people believe would provide you opportunity to act on what they now suspect to be your intentions. You can't talk about indirect suggestions of violence against airliners, presidents, or students in high schools and still expect to be able to show up at the White House, or board an airliner, or go to the high school you attend. Society doesn't work like that these days.
  - jakelazaroff 2y ago
    I mean, sure, but the question was about the First Amendment.
  - loeg 2y ago
    Minors essentially don't have the same rights as adults.
SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
Leaving that question aside, I believe there's a difference between that, and reporting, uncensored, that somebody else did. Presumably Israel is happy for the "right" people to report it, with the appropriate condemnation and editing. What that ends up amounting to is compelled speech. I know that's not quite the issue you're responding to, but I do believe that free speech requires the right to report that somebody said something that might be illegal itself, and that free speech also requires that you not be compelled to rebuke it with the appropriate government talking points to do so.
ceejayoz 2y ago
Yes. Neo-Nazis serve as an obvious example. As long as you aren’t inciting imminent lawless actions you can say pretty much anything. Or https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/pastors-praise-anti-gay-massacre-in-orlando-prompting-outrage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/pastors-praise-anti-ga...
alfiedotwtf 2y ago
[flagged]
csdreamer7 2y ago
> Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ? You can not. Inciting violence and calls for criminal action is a well establish limit of the First Amendment, but that is not what they are doing from what I gathered in this thread. From the poster a few levels above: > In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas. Also the entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide political influence through media, not as an unbiased news agency. Showing a video of an enemy of the country calling for genocide of that country is a newsworthy event that is part of journalistic practice. The American media showed Osama Bin Laden videos calling for the death of Americans, to report on him. Please learn the difference of showing a video of a terrorist calling for genocide to report on him vs the news anchor/owner of that news company agreeing with that terrorist and joining that call for genocide. America has other limits on free speech. Foreign control of media for example which I am not familiar with.
- trogdor 2y ago
  >You can not There is more to it than that. The Supreme Court has held that “advocacy of the use of force” is only unprotected when it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
- jcranmer 2y ago
  > You can not. Inciting violence and calls for criminal action is a well establish limit of the First Amendment, but that is not what they are doing from what I gathered in this thread. Brandenburg v Ohio (the current standard for what constitutes incitement) literally says your free speech rights run up to and include advocacy for violent overthrow of the government. The limitation it establishes is "incitement to imminent lawless action", with heavy emphasis on "imminent".
  - csdreamer7 2y ago
    Learned something new. Thank you.
dangerwill 2y ago
Balaji Srinivasan - "Take total control of your neighborhood. Push out all Blues. Tell them they’re ... unwelcome Just as Blues ethnically cleanse me out of San Francisco, like, push out all Blues." https://youtu.be/EqJoXaNFFjY?si=x3HD6-P9n98KTHGi&t=14723 https://youtu.be/EqJoXaNFFjY?si=x3HD6-P9n98KTHGi&t=14723
rendall 2y ago
> Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ? Yes. We see this with open chants of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and "Globalize the Intifada" ...as long as the call is not likely to produce "imminent lawless action". Brandenburg v. Ohio was a decision by the Supreme Court establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for determining when speech advocating illegal conduct is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court held that speech is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > We see this with open chants of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" I particularly object to taking worst possible interpretation, and labelling the slogan as a call for ethnic cleansing. The phrase "will be free" would not normally be interpreted this was in in any other conflict.
  - rendall 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - jakelazaroff 2y ago
      I would describe this as a motte and bailey: using the failure of peace processes to advance the claim that any call for Palestinian freedom is genocidal. Although even the “motte” in this case is tenuous, since preventing the recognition of a Palestinian state has been an explicit goal of Israeli and U.S. foreign policy. Honestly not even sure what to say about the second paragraph, other than that “implacable religious and ethnic hatred” is definitely a deeply held Western value. We don’t have a monopoly on it, but the idea that we are the uniquely moral ones, while all those other people are just motivated by hatred… sheesh.
omegaworks 2y ago
[flagged]
jakelazaroff 2y ago
It depends. Not sure of the threshold offhand, but I believe it has to do with “incitement of imminent lawlessness” — that is, whether your words are designed to cause specific violent acts (as opposed to just generally stirring up hate that ends up being violent). Concrete examples: “Jews will not replace us” is protected speech; “everyone go out and find a Jew” to an angry mob is probably not.
austin-cheney 2y ago
That’s complicated. The US has criminal and civil law. With regards to criminal law in terms of expression and liberties there are very few things you cannot do. The default is to lean towards liberty always. In terms of civil law you can generally sue anyone for anything at anytime unless there is existing law or contracts halting further civil actions.
- emodendroket 2y ago
  You can't sue someone for calling for violence, including racially motivated violence. Incitement is a crime, but incitement happens when you direct someone to take a specific action and they do exactly what you said (e.g., you tell them to go beat someone and they do it).
jachee 2y ago
I mean, that’s what the KKK does.
objektif 2y ago
Apparently as far as I learned from a lawyer the answer is yes. If you are not acting or planning to act on it what you described is protected under free speech.
emodendroket 2y ago
Actually yes.
aprilthird2021 2y ago
I think you can. I mean the Daily Stormer amongst other horrible hate-filled online publications are allowed to publish online, and US citizens are allowed to read it. Meanwhile Israeli citizens cannot read Al Jazeera legally now.

Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ?

by avip 2y ago

Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ?

DEADMINCE 2y ago

If worded in a way to prevent outright calls to violence, then yes.

bilbo0s 2y ago
Um. Had cops show up at the home of a child that was on a sports team of my daughter's. They were looking for her brother and took him in. Afterwards we spoke more to her mother and found out that users in game forums had told him he could make these kinds of comments and it was free speech as long it wasn't a call to violence. Well I don't know the legalities, but I do know he was never welcome back at that school. (Nor even in the district for that matter.) Worse, the neighboring district got word, and they implemented their own machinations to ensure he was effectively banned from there as well. In the end, they sent him to live with relatives. I wouldn't be so cavalier about telling people they can say things like this. It's like, well you can say anything. But if you say things that make oblique suggestions towards violence, expect to watched from that point on. And excluded from any activities that people believe would provide you opportunity to act on what they now suspect to be your intentions. You can't talk about indirect suggestions of violence against airliners, presidents, or students in high schools and still expect to be able to show up at the White House, or board an airliner, or go to the high school you attend. Society doesn't work like that these days.
- jakelazaroff 2y ago
  I mean, sure, but the question was about the First Amendment.
- loeg 2y ago
  Minors essentially don't have the same rights as adults.

SuperNinKenDo 2y ago

Leaving that question aside, I believe there's a difference between that, and reporting, uncensored, that somebody else did. Presumably Israel is happy for the "right" people to report it, with the appropriate condemnation and editing. What that ends up amounting to is compelled speech. I know that's not quite the issue you're responding to, but I do believe that free speech requires the right to report that somebody said something that might be illegal itself, and that free speech also requires that you not be compelled to rebuke it with the appropriate government talking points to do so.

ceejayoz 2y ago

Yes. Neo-Nazis serve as an obvious example. As long as you aren’t inciting imminent lawless actions you can say pretty much anything. Or https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/pastors-praise-anti-gay-massacre-in-orlando-prompting-outrage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/pastors-praise-anti-ga...

alfiedotwtf 2y ago

[flagged]

csdreamer7 2y ago

> Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ? You can not. Inciting violence and calls for criminal action is a well establish limit of the First Amendment, but that is not what they are doing from what I gathered in this thread. From the poster a few levels above: > In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas. Also the entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide political influence through media, not as an unbiased news agency. Showing a video of an enemy of the country calling for genocide of that country is a newsworthy event that is part of journalistic practice. The American media showed Osama Bin Laden videos calling for the death of Americans, to report on him. Please learn the difference of showing a video of a terrorist calling for genocide to report on him vs the news anchor/owner of that news company agreeing with that terrorist and joining that call for genocide. America has other limits on free speech. Foreign control of media for example which I am not familiar with.

trogdor 2y ago
>You can not There is more to it than that. The Supreme Court has held that “advocacy of the use of force” is only unprotected when it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
jcranmer 2y ago
> You can not. Inciting violence and calls for criminal action is a well establish limit of the First Amendment, but that is not what they are doing from what I gathered in this thread. Brandenburg v Ohio (the current standard for what constitutes incitement) literally says your free speech rights run up to and include advocacy for violent overthrow of the government. The limitation it establishes is "incitement to imminent lawless action", with heavy emphasis on "imminent".
- csdreamer7 2y ago
  Learned something new. Thank you.

dangerwill 2y ago

Balaji Srinivasan - "Take total control of your neighborhood. Push out all Blues. Tell them they’re ... unwelcome Just as Blues ethnically cleanse me out of San Francisco, like, push out all Blues." https://youtu.be/EqJoXaNFFjY?si=x3HD6-P9n98KTHGi&t=14723 https://youtu.be/EqJoXaNFFjY?si=x3HD6-P9n98KTHGi&t=14723

rendall 2y ago

> Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ? Yes. We see this with open chants of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and "Globalize the Intifada" ...as long as the call is not likely to produce "imminent lawless action". Brandenburg v. Ohio was a decision by the Supreme Court establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for determining when speech advocating illegal conduct is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court held that speech is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> We see this with open chants of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" I particularly object to taking worst possible interpretation, and labelling the slogan as a call for ethnic cleansing. The phrase "will be free" would not normally be interpreted this was in in any other conflict.
- rendall 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jakelazaroff 2y ago
    I would describe this as a motte and bailey: using the failure of peace processes to advance the claim that any call for Palestinian freedom is genocidal. Although even the “motte” in this case is tenuous, since preventing the recognition of a Palestinian state has been an explicit goal of Israeli and U.S. foreign policy. Honestly not even sure what to say about the second paragraph, other than that “implacable religious and ethnic hatred” is definitely a deeply held Western value. We don’t have a monopoly on it, but the idea that we are the uniquely moral ones, while all those other people are just motivated by hatred… sheesh.

omegaworks 2y ago

[flagged]

jakelazaroff 2y ago

It depends. Not sure of the threshold offhand, but I believe it has to do with “incitement of imminent lawlessness” — that is, whether your words are designed to cause specific violent acts (as opposed to just generally stirring up hate that ends up being violent). Concrete examples: “Jews will not replace us” is protected speech; “everyone go out and find a Jew” to an angry mob is probably not.

austin-cheney 2y ago

That’s complicated. The US has criminal and civil law. With regards to criminal law in terms of expression and liberties there are very few things you cannot do. The default is to lean towards liberty always. In terms of civil law you can generally sue anyone for anything at anytime unless there is existing law or contracts halting further civil actions.

emodendroket 2y ago
You can't sue someone for calling for violence, including racially motivated violence. Incitement is a crime, but incitement happens when you direct someone to take a specific action and they do exactly what you said (e.g., you tell them to go beat someone and they do it).

jachee 2y ago

I mean, that’s what the KKK does.

objektif 2y ago

Apparently as far as I learned from a lawyer the answer is yes. If you are not acting or planning to act on it what you described is protected under free speech.

emodendroket 2y ago

Actually yes.

aprilthird2021 2y ago

I think you can. I mean the Daily Stormer amongst other horrible hate-filled online publications are allowed to publish online, and US citizens are allowed to read it. Meanwhile Israeli citizens cannot read Al Jazeera legally now.