Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Baitball Blogger

(46,574 posts)
Sat May 14, 2022, 09:27 PM May 2022

Is the pattern clear enough to start suing the right-wing nuts for inciting violence on

innocent people? I mean, how more clear can it be? It's like the early days when drunk drivers got away with killing people with their cars. So many got away with next to nothing. MADD arrived, the laws changed and the number of incidents just dropped.

So, why can't we have a massive campaign to stop people from killing for hate? And it should begin with getting people off platforms where they can incite others to violence.

40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is the pattern clear enough to start suing the right-wing nuts for inciting violence on (Original Post) Baitball Blogger May 2022 OP
Some Jan 6 defendants blamed Trump for inciting them. keithbvadu2 May 2022 #1
This is a cause and effect that we can no longer ignore. Baitball Blogger May 2022 #2
I am sure some people here will tell you drray23 May 2022 #3
He directly quoted frucker carlson in his "manifesto." PortTack May 2022 #4
Do you have that excerpt? herding cats May 2022 #5
Link? onenote May 2022 #16
One would think so. herding cats May 2022 #6
If you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater ... Novara May 2022 #7
The FCC has zero authority over cable, satellite and the internet, MarineCombatEngineer May 2022 #8
I'm saying the law needs to be changed Novara May 2022 #9
Not going to happen MarineCombatEngineer May 2022 #10
"Oh gosh, they might go after us" Novara May 2022 #17
Other than trashing the 1A, MarineCombatEngineer May 2022 #19
I'm not sure you know as much about the First Amendment as you think you do onenote May 2022 #12
+100. nt MarineCombatEngineer May 2022 #13
You CAN shout "fire" in a crowded theater... brooklynite May 2022 #11
We are talking about extending the definition of laws we already have on the books. Baitball Blogger May 2022 #18
So songwriters whose lyrics are cited as motivation for a criminal act should be prosecuted? onenote May 2022 #25
Let's start with public figures who are directly talking to the people. Baitball Blogger May 2022 #28
Songwriters and performers are public figures who directly talk to the people onenote May 2022 #29
Inciting people to action, and inciting people to violence and murder are Baitball Blogger May 2022 #31
Just thinking that there is evidence melm00se May 2022 #14
+100. nt MarineCombatEngineer May 2022 #15
I think a pundit on t.v. or a public political figure meets this standard. Baitball Blogger May 2022 #20
What you think and what the courts think are 2 different things. nt MarineCombatEngineer May 2022 #21
If they respond it will come because something will change their perspective. Baitball Blogger May 2022 #23
Not with this RW SCOTUS, MarineCombatEngineer May 2022 #24
I'm not so sure about that. Baitball Blogger May 2022 #26
This case cuts both ways and Brandenburg decision melm00se May 2022 #30
Really enjoyed talking with you. Baitball Blogger May 2022 #32
Then what do you suggest? Novara May 2022 #22
see #23 melm00se May 2022 #34
I believe the only way.... The Grand Illuminist May 2022 #27
Well, there needs to be some way to make sure we define politically motivated Baitball Blogger May 2022 #33
#TuckerTerrorist #TuckersFault and #TuckerCarlsonHasBloodOnHisHands all popped up last night sarcasmo May 2022 #35
"Liberals beware": Don Jr. and GOP candidate Eric Greitens threaten Democrats while shooting guns Hotler May 2022 #36
Oh, I know. I stopped attending college reunions in my college which is conservative. Baitball Blogger May 2022 #38
I found out someone I went to high school with may have been involved in Jan. 6th. Initech May 2022 #39
"Too soon for any of this" durablend May 2022 #37
Probably economic anxiety dalton99a May 2022 #40

Baitball Blogger

(46,574 posts)
2. This is a cause and effect that we can no longer ignore.
Sat May 14, 2022, 09:33 PM
May 2022

On top of everything else that we're protesting, this should make it to the top three. Bang the drums to the J6 public hearings. I see big changes in the future because of these continual racist massacres.

drray23

(7,587 posts)
3. I am sure some people here will tell you
Sat May 14, 2022, 09:56 PM
May 2022

no, you have to prove intent and its hard etc..
That is also the argument I was hearing about whether Trump could be indicted in the secret documents scandal. Already some pundits were backpedaling saying that it would be hard.

Damm laws cant be enforced apparently. I always was told that ignorance of the law is no excuse but apparently that is not true in some instances, especially for white colar crimes. That is ridiculous.

herding cats

(19,549 posts)
6. One would think so.
Sun May 15, 2022, 03:13 AM
May 2022

I know we're up against some messed up people in our judiciary, but the Sandy Hook families have been preserving.

Novara

(5,754 posts)
7. If you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater ...
Sun May 15, 2022, 08:57 AM
May 2022

... then inciting racial hate on the airwaves should be illegal. I know all about the First Amendment, but yelling FIRE in a crowded theater is illegal because of its danger of provoking violence, and it is not protected by the First Amendment.

Seems to me, Fucker Carlson is provoking violence with his hate speech. So is the GQP. The FCC needs to do its job.

MarineCombatEngineer

(12,092 posts)
8. The FCC has zero authority over cable, satellite and the internet,
Sun May 15, 2022, 09:02 AM
May 2022

The FCC is expressly forbidden by law to regulate those venues, one doesn't even need a license to operate on those venues.

MarineCombatEngineer

(12,092 posts)
10. Not going to happen
Sun May 15, 2022, 09:08 AM
May 2022

and no court in the land would uphold such a law, especially this SCOTUS.

I'm not too keen on giving the FCC this power, it would most definitely by mis-used by the repukes if and when they regained power, they could go after liberal outlets, and DU for that matter.

Novara

(5,754 posts)
17. "Oh gosh, they might go after us"
Sun May 15, 2022, 09:31 AM
May 2022

While a reasonable consideration, what happens in the meantime? This is Manchin and Sinema's reason for not changing the filibuster - "what happens when we don't have the majority?"

Well, what is happening NOW? Fucker Carlson and the GQP are broadcasting hate speech, and now we can see a direct line to racial murder. Something has to be done.

Likewise, unless voting protections are passed we will never have another fair election.

I agree that today's SCOTUS would strike it down. But something needs to be done to stop this megaphone of hate speech which is inciting murder.

It's clear we can't shame them into silence - they have no shame. I imagine Fucker Carlson is doubling down as we speak. Advertisers aren't going to pull their ads. They might pretend to, but they always slink back into promoting this shit. The companies that stopped giving money to insurrectionist congresspeople came right back and are giving them money once again.

What can be done?

onenote

(42,374 posts)
12. I'm not sure you know as much about the First Amendment as you think you do
Sun May 15, 2022, 09:23 AM
May 2022

For example, the actual phrase you misquote (from the 1919 Schenck case) is "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" The case in which it was used held that making it illegal for someone to distribute flyers opposing the draft in World War I.

Moreover, the Schenck case was partially overturned in the Brandenburg v. Ohio case, where it was held that the First Amendment protects speech advocating the use of force except where it is directed to inciting or producing "imminent" lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

In Schenck, the Court held that it was not a violation of the First Amendment to make it illegal for someone to distribute flyers opposing the draft in World War I. Presumably, you think that would no longer be the correct outcome under Brandenburg. But it also means that the speech you want to see made illegal is protected by the First Amendment because, unlike falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, it doesn't meet the imminent lawless action standard.

brooklynite

(93,851 posts)
11. You CAN shout "fire" in a crowded theater...
Sun May 15, 2022, 09:12 AM
May 2022

…if you think there’s actually a fire. If a RW podcaster says that he thinks all blacks are carjackers or all illegal aliens are drug mules or all Jews are…(you get the picture), their language is protected by the First Amendment unless you can prove otherwise.

Baitball Blogger

(46,574 posts)
18. We are talking about extending the definition of laws we already have on the books.
Sun May 15, 2022, 09:32 AM
May 2022

We already have a law for inciting to riot/inciting to violence. That law is meant for mobs, or groups of people and it does address speech. It wouldn't or shouldn't be hard to extend it to one individual who follows someone's speech of incitement that motivates him to commit a crime. And we already have the prongs to identify hate crimes.

Baitball Blogger

(46,574 posts)
28. Let's start with public figures who are directly talking to the people.
Sun May 15, 2022, 09:58 AM
May 2022

Songs would be a layer on top of whatever else is going on. I am guessing they would just be added as additional evidence. But not as the original source of the problem.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
29. Songwriters and performers are public figures who directly talk to the people
Sun May 15, 2022, 10:20 AM
May 2022

Ever heard of N.W.A.? Heard of Ozzy Osbourne? Judas Priest?

Do you think protest songs don't motivate people to action, including unlawful action?

Baitball Blogger

(46,574 posts)
31. Inciting people to action, and inciting people to violence and murder are
Sun May 15, 2022, 10:34 AM
May 2022

two different things. Can we agree on that point? It's a very important point and will help keep this discussion out of the FoxNews confusion word soup.

Right now I would be happy to reign in their people to match the level of protest that the Left are known for. Peaceful protests and, you know what? Even property damage is better than what the Right is doing right now. These people are gunning people. Intentionally assassinating people. Can you see the difference?

melm00se

(4,973 posts)
14. Just thinking that there is evidence
Sun May 15, 2022, 09:28 AM
May 2022

does not mean that there is.

For speech to rise to the level where the speech loses 1st Amendment protection, it must fail the Brandenburg Test which is used to determine when inflammatory speech advocating illegal action can be restricted.

The speech must be “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

This is a rather high bar if you read thru Hess v. Indiana and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co which, IMO, it should be.

I stand by my opinion as a lot of protesting (especially against the government but against private entities as well) is chock full hyperbole which can be interpreted as a calling for illegal actions. By developing the Brandenburg test which includes the require determining and validating that there is intent, imminence and likelihood on behalf of the speaker(s), the Court, as they are wont to do, places significant barriers to prevent the government from punishing or prohibiting the exercising of free speech.

This quote from NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co really sums it up quite nicely:

“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".

Baitball Blogger

(46,574 posts)
20. I think a pundit on t.v. or a public political figure meets this standard.
Sun May 15, 2022, 09:34 AM
May 2022

“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".

Baitball Blogger

(46,574 posts)
23. If they respond it will come because something will change their perspective.
Sun May 15, 2022, 09:41 AM
May 2022

The increase of these nutcases with right-wing manifestos with the same racist wording will come across like a an act of Civil War for many. The sheer increase in their numbers may change their view.

Baitball Blogger

(46,574 posts)
26. I'm not so sure about that.
Sun May 15, 2022, 09:53 AM
May 2022

This Scotus is now feeling the same hostile environment that we are.

It's a poor academic who does not take human suffering into account. The conservative Supremes can extrapolate abstract concepts to the moon, but the flaw in their reasoning would become apparent when people start turning blue in the face from the lack of oxygen.

melm00se

(4,973 posts)
30. This case cuts both ways and Brandenburg decision
Sun May 15, 2022, 10:23 AM
May 2022

was decided by the 1969 Court which was many things but right wing.

Furthermore, this was an 8-0 decision (Justice Fortas had resigned but not yet replaced). This makes overturning or modifying this ruling a monumental task.

Additionally, this ruling cuts both ways. Look at the two cases I referenced in my original (Hess v. Indiana and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co), they were both cases that would have been celebrated upon the decision if DU existed in 1973 and 1982 respectively.

Can you imagine if those cases went the other way?

(to help you out: Hess stemmed from a anti-war protest and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co from a boycott of white merchants in MS at during the Civil Rights movement and the merchants suing for economic restitution for that boycott).

Novara

(5,754 posts)
22. Then what do you suggest?
Sun May 15, 2022, 09:36 AM
May 2022

Something has to be done. These motherfuckers are inciting murder with their words. And I'll bet there will be copycats, especially because this motherfucker is still alive - they'll make a hero out of him.

I doubt boycotting their advertisers would even have an impact.

So what can be done? Give us some ideas. You're saying we can't regulate their speech provoking violence because it isn't an imminent threat. Okay, I understand that.

Then what can be done?

melm00se

(4,973 posts)
34. see #23
Sun May 15, 2022, 11:12 AM
May 2022

My position is very similar to the Supreme Court as it relates to free speech.

The government must show overwhelming and compelling cases to restrict speech especially when such a restriction would fall into the prior restraint category which appears to be what you are advocating.

The best way to combat speech that you find odious is to expose it to sunlight but be prepared to defend your position with facts not feelings. I find so many people (young, old, rightwing, leftwing and just about every other category) who default to appealing to people's feelings rather than facts.

I am not saying that there are cases where you are offended. But because you are offended does not mean that you can or should stomp on someone's right to say things that offend. If that was the case, I would suggest that most art, most public speech, most religions and most documents (like the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, the UN Declaration of Human Rights) would end up in the trash bin because someone, somewhere, somehow is offended by them.

"Give me Liberty or give me death!!" - I am sure offended the British.

"We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." - Absolutely pissed off some Americans.

The Godfather - offended some Italian-Americans

This:


Nude people? In a Church? OMFG!!!!

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men (as well as many, many, many others for many, many, many reasons) have offended people so they would be banned outright and never to be read again with no recourse.

Both ends of the ideological spectrum want to remake the world to their vision and banish anything that does not align with their vision. This world, the real world, is going to see conflict and disagreement but there must be a way to prevent one side from ramming their vision down the throats of the other side. Doing so will bring both sides into violent confrontation. I am absolutely certain that neither side (with all hyperbole aside) wants open armed conflict. Remember, the last time Americans came to blows between each other it cost ~2% of the US population in deaths. That death toll today would equal 6.6 million people (which, IMO, is really low).

The Grand Illuminist

(1,306 posts)
27. I believe the only way....
Sun May 15, 2022, 09:58 AM
May 2022

Is to include political and social ideology, affiliation, and party in the civil rights act. I believe there are members of congress that lost a lot of money by acquiring private security as a result of Jan. 6th, but because the violence of Jan. 6th was politically motivated, they can not sue for monetary damages. With this addition, they will have that right.

Baitball Blogger

(46,574 posts)
33. Well, there needs to be some way to make sure we define politically motivated
Sun May 15, 2022, 10:38 AM
May 2022

protection. Otherwise the Karens in the Right-wing will be trying to cash in every time a kid plays with sidewalk chalk outside their homes.

Baitball Blogger

(46,574 posts)
38. Oh, I know. I stopped attending college reunions in my college which is conservative.
Sun May 15, 2022, 12:05 PM
May 2022

I even know one person who went to Jan. 6, though I don't know if she also joined the insurrectionist.

Initech

(99,913 posts)
39. I found out someone I went to high school with may have been involved in Jan. 6th.
Sun May 15, 2022, 12:55 PM
May 2022

It's definitely made me think wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy less of that person.

dalton99a

(81,065 posts)
40. Probably economic anxiety
Sun May 15, 2022, 12:58 PM
May 2022

A law enforcement personnel stands outside the home of Buffalo supermarket shooting suspect Payton Gendron in Conklin, New York, U.S. May 15, 2022. REUTERS/Angus Mordant
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is the pattern clear enou...