5 ms·

For people too lazy to click, the second post was: > I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter. > Violence a

by creata 10mo ago

For people too lazy to click, the second post was: > I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter. > Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE. I'm not sure what the punishment for such a clear but ineffective incitement to violence should be, but it shouldn't be nothing.

MangoToupe 10mo ago
This is an convictable crime in the US. Inciting violence is emphatically not protected speech.
- jandrewrogers 10mo ago
  This is definitely not a crime in the US per the US Supreme Court. Several additional conditions not in evidence are required for speech of this type to fall outside of First Amendment protections.
  - fao_ 10mo ago
    The Something Awful Forums got investigated by the FBI after one or two people posted threats about the current president. So, uh, yes. It's definitely something that the federal authorities take a dim view on.
    - brigandish 10mo ago
      You're mixing up "take a dim view" on and investigation, with charging and conviction.
      - MangoToupe 10mo ago
        Inciting violence is certainly an arrestable offence, and likely convictable. What hill are you trying to die on?
        brigandish 10mo ago
        The hill where take a dim view on and investigation are distinct from charging and conviction, because they are. You would also have to contend with the problem where you've decided that it is incitement, as if conviction is a formality, even though: - investigation - charging - court process all come before conviction, which is convenient but not particularly bright or persuasive when they're mentioned in the comment you replied to.
  - MangoToupe 10mo ago
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 > Several additional conditions not in evidence are required for speech of this type to fall outside of First Amendment protections. Perhaps your point would be clearer if you indicated what specific conditions you believe are missing. Maybe the tweeter had no followers? Idk, I can only vaguely guess at what you're referring to.
- joe463369 10mo ago
  It didn't happen in the US though, so that's neither here nor there. America's political system is not some benchmark that the rest of the world needs to judge themselves against.
bennyp101 10mo ago
"then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament" - that's the bit that probably set it in motion
brigandish 10mo ago
The US has a three part test[1] for what constitutes incitement: - intent - imminence - likelihood If the UK had speech protections like the US (which I wish they would) then it would fail the imminence and probably the likelihood tests (you rightly note that it is ineffective). [1] https://uslawexplained.com/incitement https://uslawexplained.com/incitement
- josteink 10mo ago
  These tweets had 33 views. At least before being made a charge. I think that puts the likelihood-factor at zero.
46996435797643 10mo ago
Sounds fine.

by creata 10mo ago

MangoToupe 10mo ago

This is an convictable crime in the US. Inciting violence is emphatically not protected speech.

jandrewrogers 10mo ago
This is definitely not a crime in the US per the US Supreme Court. Several additional conditions not in evidence are required for speech of this type to fall outside of First Amendment protections.
- fao_ 10mo ago
  The Something Awful Forums got investigated by the FBI after one or two people posted threats about the current president. So, uh, yes. It's definitely something that the federal authorities take a dim view on.
  - brigandish 10mo ago
    You're mixing up "take a dim view" on and investigation, with charging and conviction.
    - MangoToupe 10mo ago
      Inciting violence is certainly an arrestable offence, and likely convictable. What hill are you trying to die on?
      - brigandish 10mo ago
        The hill where take a dim view on and investigation are distinct from charging and conviction, because they are. You would also have to contend with the problem where you've decided that it is incitement, as if conviction is a formality, even though: - investigation - charging - court process all come before conviction, which is convenient but not particularly bright or persuasive when they're mentioned in the comment you replied to.
- MangoToupe 10mo ago
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 > Several additional conditions not in evidence are required for speech of this type to fall outside of First Amendment protections. Perhaps your point would be clearer if you indicated what specific conditions you believe are missing. Maybe the tweeter had no followers? Idk, I can only vaguely guess at what you're referring to.
joe463369 10mo ago
It didn't happen in the US though, so that's neither here nor there. America's political system is not some benchmark that the rest of the world needs to judge themselves against.

bennyp101 10mo ago

"then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament" - that's the bit that probably set it in motion

brigandish 10mo ago

The US has a three part test[1] for what constitutes incitement: - intent - imminence - likelihood If the UK had speech protections like the US (which I wish they would) then it would fail the imminence and probably the likelihood tests (you rightly note that it is ineffective). [1] https://uslawexplained.com/incitement https://uslawexplained.com/incitement

josteink 10mo ago
These tweets had 33 views. At least before being made a charge. I think that puts the likelihood-factor at zero.

46996435797643 10mo ago

Sounds fine.