5 ms·

I wasn't trying to be cute or anything -- I wasn't sure whether incitement legally has to be a direct suggestion like "You should call in a bomb threat against

I wasn't trying to be cute or anything -- I wasn't sure whether incitement legally has to be a direct suggestion like "You should call in a bomb threat against this library", or whether something like "This library has groomer books and someone should do something" would count if the person saying it can reasonably expect it would lead to a bomb threat based on past behavior, and says it anyway. I do still want to find out whether there is a separate legal concept for that kind of indirect encouragement or negligence (depending on the intent of saying it anyway).

perihelions 3y ago
- "I do still want to find out whether there is a separate legal concept for that kind of indirect encouragement or negligence (depending on the intent of saying it anyway)." That's the main relevance of Brandenburg: that ruling decided that things that fall short of its test are constitutionally protected free speech. It holds [0] "speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment unless the speech is likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”". That's the answer to your "indirect encouragement or negligence" question: if it encourages violence, and if it falls short of Brandenburg's test, then it is lawful. Encouragement or advocacy of violence is generally lawful. [0] https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-ohio https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg...
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  If there's a history of such speech inciting imminent lawless action, then can't we say that such speech incites imminent lawless action? So if you have a forum, where certain kinds of statements on that forum usually/often cause very quick lawless action, can't you say that such statements on that forum are not constitutionally protected free speech? Or is that not a valid application of Brandenburg?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  All absolutely correct, but the other poster has a point. It kinds depends on how one reads 'likely'. A rudimentary analysis from year suggested that that the probability of harassment (not all of which would be illegal) following tweets about specific institutions is in the 20-25% range: https://rpubs.com/TaskForceButler/984347 https://rpubs.com/TaskForceButler/984347 The probability of actual criminal threats is much lower, perhaps 3-5%. My understanding that LibsofTiktok has a little over 1m followers, but plenty of e-celebs have comparable followings without being associated to such problematic behavior.
  - perihelions 3y ago
    - "It kinds depends on how one reads 'likely'." Well, I understand it's "directed to... and likely to...", and that first test is necessary. Rhetoric that isn't directed towards causing lawlessness, but has a tendency to do so anyway, is protected.

perihelions 3y ago

- "I do still want to find out whether there is a separate legal concept for that kind of indirect encouragement or negligence (depending on the intent of saying it anyway)." That's the main relevance of Brandenburg: that ruling decided that things that fall short of its test are constitutionally protected free speech. It holds [0] "speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment unless the speech is likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”". That's the answer to your "indirect encouragement or negligence" question: if it encourages violence, and if it falls short of Brandenburg's test, then it is lawful. Encouragement or advocacy of violence is generally lawful. [0] https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-ohio https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg...

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
If there's a history of such speech inciting imminent lawless action, then can't we say that such speech incites imminent lawless action? So if you have a forum, where certain kinds of statements on that forum usually/often cause very quick lawless action, can't you say that such statements on that forum are not constitutionally protected free speech? Or is that not a valid application of Brandenburg?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
anigbrowl 3y ago
All absolutely correct, but the other poster has a point. It kinds depends on how one reads 'likely'. A rudimentary analysis from year suggested that that the probability of harassment (not all of which would be illegal) following tweets about specific institutions is in the 20-25% range: https://rpubs.com/TaskForceButler/984347 https://rpubs.com/TaskForceButler/984347 The probability of actual criminal threats is much lower, perhaps 3-5%. My understanding that LibsofTiktok has a little over 1m followers, but plenty of e-celebs have comparable followings without being associated to such problematic behavior.
- perihelions 3y ago
  - "It kinds depends on how one reads 'likely'." Well, I understand it's "directed to... and likely to...", and that first test is necessary. Rhetoric that isn't directed towards causing lawlessness, but has a tendency to do so anyway, is protected.