General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs 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.
keithbvadu2
(36,362 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,574 posts)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)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.
PortTack
(32,606 posts)herding cats
(19,549 posts)I've only seen tiny snippets so far and would love to see that piece!
herding cats
(19,549 posts)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)... 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)The FCC is expressly forbidden by law to regulate those venues, one doesn't even need a license to operate on those venues.
Novara
(5,754 posts)MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)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)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?
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)then what's your suggestion?
onenote
(42,374 posts)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.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)brooklynite
(93,851 posts)if you think theres 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)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.
onenote
(42,374 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,574 posts)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)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)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)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:
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,574 posts)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".
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,574 posts)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.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)maybe in the future, but I won't be around to see it happen.
Baitball Blogger
(46,574 posts)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)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).
Baitball Blogger
(46,574 posts)Good information.
Novara
(5,754 posts)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?
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)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)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.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)on Twitter.
Hotler
(11,353 posts)https://www.mediaite.com/politics/liberals-beware-don-jr-and-disgraced-senate-candidate-eric-greitens-taunt-progressives-while-firing-guns/
How should any of us not feel threatened by this shit. I wouldn't call this free speech.
I sure hope they get a visit from the DOJ on behalf of all of us. Yeah right.
Baitball Blogger
(46,574 posts)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)It's definitely made me think wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy less of that person.
durablend
(7,416 posts)"We don't know what the killer's motives were"
dalton99a
(81,065 posts)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