Incitement requires the advocacy of imminent lawless action that is likely to produce such action. The material here, while repugnant, doesn't meet that standard.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
So it's not likely that some trans kid is going to get beaten or worse killed after their transphobic parents read that book? Seems pretty fucking likely to me.
and, to be clear -- this shit is awful, and it causes harm. But it's pointless to work against it in ways that are just going to get shredded by the buzzsaw that is the First Amendment.
Bearing in mind that "We'll take the streets later" was found not to meet the imminence standards in Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S.105 (1973), what exactly is being advocated here that you think DOES meet the imminence standard?
Again, not a lawyer, but just trying to use common sense (and common decency here), how is the criminal action not "imminent" if it immediately follows from the reading of said speech? Would they have to say, "deny your child needed healthcare on 7/6/23 for it to apply? Make that make sense to me.
It's not imminent because the Supreme Court already said that "come with me to march on the white house two weeks hence and set it on fire" isn't imminent, and that advocacy of illegal actions and violence is protected speech.
And also, is it not "lawless" to deny a child needed healthcare? Haven't courts decided that qualifies as negligence and is therefor criminal? I'm not jaqing off here. I'm saying, someone should test these ideas in court. Old precedent can be overturned and new precedent set.
To advocate for the things being advocated for now, a person must believe with their entire soul that the power of the state will never turn against themselves (dumb), or that they can kill the people who would use it against them fast enough to keep it from happening (might work, but sociopathic).
It doesn't *quite* require that level of specificity, but it comes really damn close.
Before condemning that, though - if it didn't require extreme specificity, how would many states have dealt with (eg) anyone proposing that people take to the streets in the summer of 2020?
That's the core problem here, afaict. Anything that increases the power of the state to regulate speech also increases, by definition, the state's power to crack down on the speech of unpopular and persecuted minority groups and its ability to misuse that power.
I'm coming from this from a strictly practical point of view. Whether or not we need better laws, we're virtually guaranteed not to get them. So how can we fix this problem in the legal landscape we _do_ have?
Well based on this and a dozen other issues that are destroying our democracy from with in, festering because of an outdated constitution, I think it may be time to update that living, breathing document for starters. That is certainly legal and doable. Not easy, but possible.
Comments
These ideas *have* been tested in court. Over the past hundred years, the jurisprudence has basically all moved in the same direction.
Before condemning that, though - if it didn't require extreme specificity, how would many states have dealt with (eg) anyone proposing that people take to the streets in the summer of 2020?
I'm coming from this from a strictly practical point of view. Whether or not we need better laws, we're virtually guaranteed not to get them. So how can we fix this problem in the legal landscape we _do_ have?