4 ms·

I don't disagree with your message, but man... I disagree with the idea that putting together a hit-list in the style popularized by the US military in Afghanis

I don't disagree with your message, but man... I disagree with the idea that putting together a hit-list in the style popularized by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq is protected speech. There's a MASSIVE and obvious 1st amendment issue here, but in the sense of "Incitement to murder isn't covered under the 1st amendment" sense. So yes, our reliance on platforms which can cut us off is a problem, the chilling effect on online speech is a problem. But not over this.

wnoise 2y ago
Normally to be covered under "incitement", it has to be a call for imminent unlawful behavior.
- EA-3167 2y ago
  A hit-list of specific individuals seems like it falls under that category, doubly so when it's clearly intended to be a "continuation" of the UHC CEO assassination.
  - idlewords 2y ago
    The guy also posted "the CEO must die" to his Instagram.
    - undersuit 2y ago
      Maybe you should apply HN comment etiquette outside of HN. >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. The strongest good faith interpretation of "the CEO must die" is that it is not a call to action for murdering "the CEO". But we'll let the author clarify: >“The CEO is more than an individual it is a figurehead of the capitalist order,” he wrote. “When we say the ceo must die, we mean the structure of capitalism must be broken.”
      - idlewords 2y ago
        I interpret the author's clarification as backpedaling by someone who enjoyed making an inflammatory statement but didn't want to stand behind it.
        undersuit 2y ago
        Who is "the CEO"? Is it all 52? So you have decided from the start to take the uncharitable take.
      - EA-3167 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure that if someone posted that here, in the context of making "most wanted" list... they'd be banned. Good faith is for arguments, not calls to murder.
        tptacek 2y ago
        You can use the search bar below to see that this is in fact true: this is a quick way to get banned on HN.
        undersuit 2y ago
        the CEO must die. And now we wait.
        EA-3167 2y ago
        A stunt like that is precisely why I was clear about the CONTEXT. Note that I'm not encouraging you to actually do it, far from it, but lets not pretend that you're bravely proving a point here.
        undersuit 2y ago
        You're free to ignore the context of a person saying "the CEO must die" after years railing against capitalism. I'm just going to call you out for it.
  - Amezarak 2y ago
    It doesn't. Brandenburg and the related case law is clear on this. "Imminent" doesn't mean "someone else plots to assassinate a CEO and does it four months later." It means right now, like standing in the street pointing to the CEO and shouting to an armed crowd "shoot him!" Generalized calls to violence are perfectly legal and have been a part of American political culture for centuries. Sometimes it's much hotter than others (the 1960s were pretty hot), but so it goes. I personally wouldn't do it, and I don't agree with these statements or these cards, but people have a right to say it.
hiatus 2y ago
In what way does the existence of these cards incite violence? A would-be malicious actor previously would not have been able to plan targets if not for this card set? It's not like this person is a public figure calling for the heads of these CEOs.
- EA-3167 2y ago
  The not-so-implied message of a hit-list is, "Murder these specific people." We're talking about incitement here, not aiding and abetting, and "calling for heads" is precisely the point here. Unless you really think it's just a deck of cards with a particularly bizarre motif, and I don't think any of us really buy that.
  - hiatus 2y ago
    It is not a hitlist but a "Most Wanted" list. Does the FBI's list of Most Wanted people incite violence? Why is this any different?
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      The FBI has legal authority - things like warrants, which are only issued when a court has seen sufficient grounds. This dude does not have anything like that.
    - EA-3167 2y ago
      I appreciate the spirit, but unfortunately in this case the person themselves made their views and intentions abundantly clear, so we don't have to talk about anything circumstantial. To quote IdleWorlds above (once again, thank you for this info): "The guy also posted "the CEO must die" to his Instagram." There's no "what if" here.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
vueko 2y ago
> There's a MASSIVE and obvious 1st amendment issue here, but in the sense of "Incitement to murder isn't covered under the 1st amendment" sense. It's not as clear-cut as you make it sound, and that's why the Brandenburg test is such an important concept: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test > The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test: > The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.” Imminent is the keyword there. Saying "let's go kill that CEO" at the head of a mob outside their home isn't protected, as it passes the test - it is genuinely likely to result in the mob storming the house, as the mob is positioned to be able to do so as an immediate reaction to the speech telling them to, and the speaker knows it. In contrast, consider some of the speech found to be protected by this standard: > a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally to his fellow Klansmen, and after listing a number of derogatory racial slurs, he then said that “it's possible that there might have to be some vengeance [sic] taken.” > In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co . (1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test and found that the speech was protected : “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.” Advocating violence in the abstract doesn't satisfy the imminence requirement. Unless there's a direct connection in time and place between the speaker and the lawless actor, it's protected.
- Amezarak 2y ago
  Thank you for this great post. I've noticed over time people seem to be absorbing notions of the limits of the 1A that just aren't true; I think a lot of it is stories exactly like this. The longer that goes on, and the more widespread, the more likely in the future 1A protections will be weakened - because everyone will assume "oh, that was illegal anyway" or "wow, that's not illegal? seems like common sense it should be." A separate, but related issue is people assuming "free speech" and the First Amendment are equal; that you have "free speech" as long as you have a First Amendment, and only that. But obviously, a society where you can be totally ostracized from all markets and common society on the basis of your speech is not a free society, even if the government doesn't put you in jail. To live in a free society and to have free speech doesn't mean only the government tolerates speech, it extends to us.

wnoise 2y ago

Normally to be covered under "incitement", it has to be a call for imminent unlawful behavior.

EA-3167 2y ago
A hit-list of specific individuals seems like it falls under that category, doubly so when it's clearly intended to be a "continuation" of the UHC CEO assassination.
- idlewords 2y ago
  The guy also posted "the CEO must die" to his Instagram.
  - undersuit 2y ago
    Maybe you should apply HN comment etiquette outside of HN. >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. The strongest good faith interpretation of "the CEO must die" is that it is not a call to action for murdering "the CEO". But we'll let the author clarify: >“The CEO is more than an individual it is a figurehead of the capitalist order,” he wrote. “When we say the ceo must die, we mean the structure of capitalism must be broken.”
    - idlewords 2y ago
      I interpret the author's clarification as backpedaling by someone who enjoyed making an inflammatory statement but didn't want to stand behind it.
      - undersuit 2y ago
        Who is "the CEO"? Is it all 52? So you have decided from the start to take the uncharitable take.
    - EA-3167 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure that if someone posted that here, in the context of making "most wanted" list... they'd be banned. Good faith is for arguments, not calls to murder.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        You can use the search bar below to see that this is in fact true: this is a quick way to get banned on HN.
      - undersuit 2y ago
        the CEO must die. And now we wait.
        EA-3167 2y ago
        A stunt like that is precisely why I was clear about the CONTEXT. Note that I'm not encouraging you to actually do it, far from it, but lets not pretend that you're bravely proving a point here.
        undersuit 2y ago
        You're free to ignore the context of a person saying "the CEO must die" after years railing against capitalism. I'm just going to call you out for it.
- Amezarak 2y ago
  It doesn't. Brandenburg and the related case law is clear on this. "Imminent" doesn't mean "someone else plots to assassinate a CEO and does it four months later." It means right now, like standing in the street pointing to the CEO and shouting to an armed crowd "shoot him!" Generalized calls to violence are perfectly legal and have been a part of American political culture for centuries. Sometimes it's much hotter than others (the 1960s were pretty hot), but so it goes. I personally wouldn't do it, and I don't agree with these statements or these cards, but people have a right to say it.

hiatus 2y ago

In what way does the existence of these cards incite violence? A would-be malicious actor previously would not have been able to plan targets if not for this card set? It's not like this person is a public figure calling for the heads of these CEOs.

EA-3167 2y ago
The not-so-implied message of a hit-list is, "Murder these specific people." We're talking about incitement here, not aiding and abetting, and "calling for heads" is precisely the point here. Unless you really think it's just a deck of cards with a particularly bizarre motif, and I don't think any of us really buy that.
- hiatus 2y ago
  It is not a hitlist but a "Most Wanted" list. Does the FBI's list of Most Wanted people incite violence? Why is this any different?
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    The FBI has legal authority - things like warrants, which are only issued when a court has seen sufficient grounds. This dude does not have anything like that.
  - EA-3167 2y ago
    I appreciate the spirit, but unfortunately in this case the person themselves made their views and intentions abundantly clear, so we don't have to talk about anything circumstantial. To quote IdleWorlds above (once again, thank you for this info): "The guy also posted "the CEO must die" to his Instagram." There's no "what if" here.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

vueko 2y ago

> There's a MASSIVE and obvious 1st amendment issue here, but in the sense of "Incitement to murder isn't covered under the 1st amendment" sense. It's not as clear-cut as you make it sound, and that's why the Brandenburg test is such an important concept: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test > The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test: > The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.” Imminent is the keyword there. Saying "let's go kill that CEO" at the head of a mob outside their home isn't protected, as it passes the test - it is genuinely likely to result in the mob storming the house, as the mob is positioned to be able to do so as an immediate reaction to the speech telling them to, and the speaker knows it. In contrast, consider some of the speech found to be protected by this standard: > a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally to his fellow Klansmen, and after listing a number of derogatory racial slurs, he then said that “it's possible that there might have to be some vengeance [sic] taken.” > In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co . (1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test and found that the speech was protected : “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.” Advocating violence in the abstract doesn't satisfy the imminence requirement. Unless there's a direct connection in time and place between the speaker and the lawless actor, it's protected.

Amezarak 2y ago
Thank you for this great post. I've noticed over time people seem to be absorbing notions of the limits of the 1A that just aren't true; I think a lot of it is stories exactly like this. The longer that goes on, and the more widespread, the more likely in the future 1A protections will be weakened - because everyone will assume "oh, that was illegal anyway" or "wow, that's not illegal? seems like common sense it should be." A separate, but related issue is people assuming "free speech" and the First Amendment are equal; that you have "free speech" as long as you have a First Amendment, and only that. But obviously, a society where you can be totally ostracized from all markets and common society on the basis of your speech is not a free society, even if the government doesn't put you in jail. To live in a free society and to have free speech doesn't mean only the government tolerates speech, it extends to us.