So, what should be done - if anything - about spreading violent rhetoric?

[Novara]

I heard an interesting discussion today regarding the violent threats being regularly discussed and spread over all sorts of social media platforms. And it isn't all just talk - some of this gets acted on. The violent garbage Mango Mussolini spreads has become the way the right speaks. They've picked it up.

The magistrate judge who signed the search warrant has been doxxed with threats to his life, his family's lives, and there has been talk of hurting his children. The synagogue he attends can't have services because of threats (some religious freedom, eh?).

So yeah, the 1st Amendment gives us freedom of speech. But does it protect threats? The SCOTUS ruled that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater isn't protected speech. Should violent threats be protected?

Do social media platforms have an obligation to tamp it down?

Thoughts?

[NewHendoLib]

1. As long as Faux and hate radio light the fuse...

If the root cause isn't fixed, nothing

[Novara]

2. I agree, but what should be done?

[NewHendoLib]

3. No idea. This has been going on for decades.

A cult has to be deprogrammed. The cult is huge. This is unprecedented

What I'd like to see - all politicians are any level, down to school boards, who continue to push the big lie disqualified from their position, and ever running again.

Any media that pushes the big lie lose their license

Alex Jones and trump in jail.

None of this will ever happen of course.

[PufPuf23]

4. If social media allows the fomenting of violence or sedition,

that social media should be shut down and prosecuted for damages from the stochastic terrorism. Lives have already been lost. Security cost skyrocket. Make the involved social media pay monetarily for the lives, security, etc.

What is occurring on social media (and in some churches and media, Fox et al) is arson, not a free speech issue.

Think of what these asshats are doing to the well-being of their own children.

Can't say I am optimistic.

[NewHendoLib]

5. Yup.

[ancianita]

6. Re your final question, yes and no. Depends on their TOS.

Far as I'm concerned, they can let them all yell and threaten, but users are being watched by law enforcement by now, and if they're mobilizing (which I don't think they've got leadership and operational knowledge enough to do), the platform admins will be notified to do their jobs.

There will be isolated incidents like Cincinnati, but the FBI's ON it.

[Novara]

7. Do we have enough resources to keep watch on all these terrorists?

I think it should be illegal to doxx people. Yeah, people's addresses are on the public record. But spreading that information to foment violence against them should be illegal. Make each person go look up the information themselves if they want it, but spreading people's addresses, names of family members, names of children, their schools, the places where family members work and worship as a threat to spur someone into violent action should be illegal.

I think social media companies have an obligation to shut this shit down, but they won't do it on their own initiative. There's gotta be laws, and of course those laws would be challenged in court.

[ancianita]

8. Yes. The DOJ just rounded up 1,500 criminals out on warrants last month.

The FBI keeps tabs on social media constantly.

I've seen citizens doxx bad and violent people, which puts the fear into the bad guy types, so just basic minimal doxxing can work both ways. I hear you about family. That's fomenting mafia violence.

So if you really think privately held communications platforms should be shut down, then how do you legally justify that under the Constitution and commerce clause? And it's not true that platforms haven't taken down mobilizers by their own initiative, because of TOS and "community standards." I've seen that. No laws that do what you want would hold up in court, for obvious reasons.

We all are seeing just how messy freedom is. We've seen it used responsibly, and now we're getting a good look at how it's used irresponsibly. It leads to noise, chaos and violence by thousands, but Rule of Law is holding and we who use freedom responsibly -- at least 81 million of us, along with social media platforms, big and small American business -- know that rule of law democracy is the best system for both business (which can't operate well in chaos) and eventual constitutional justice and peace. We'll get there. We're seeing that it's working.

But I'm not for shutting it all down. Just the shit that's on it. Messy. Always has been.

[Novara]

11. Don't misrepresent what I said

I did not say shut them down. I said they need to be moderated, the social media services need to keep a tight lid on the violence. They are private companies; not the government. They have every right to dictate which speech on their platforms is acceptable and which is not without the boogeyman of people screaming about being censored. Remember, Government can't curb free speech, but privately owned companies sure can dictate what is acceptable.

[ancianita]

12. You said: "I think social media companies have an obligation to shut this shit down"

Those were the words that seemed most emphatic, and so I said what I said. I'm totally with you about private platform owners dictating what's acceptable.

[DFW]

9. Aside from incitement laws, not much. However.....

When the rhetoric DOES incite violence, bring the law down on ALL parties involved, from the slogan-makers to the ones distributing the posters and bumper stickers, to the ones shouting guns off in the streets, to the ones roaming the streets with baseball bats and shaven heads.

[Mr.Bill]

10. On some level

I like the idea that they identify themselves. But I don't like what is going on now.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. Re: the theater thing

Re: the theater thing

There are a lot of people in the replies to this tweet who are shouting fire in a crowded theater…

So here’s a thread on “shouting fire in a crowded theater”

1/11 twitter.com/thehill/status…
Show this thread

Link to tweet