General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Censorship of hate speech is an unconditional surrender to hate. [View all]True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)Even when it's true that incitement has taken place - Fox News, for instance, has very clearly played a role in a number of murders and massacres - the question is not of their guilt, but of the price of legally asserting that guilt beyond civil suits.
If we held them accountable, how easily could they pervert the standard it established, and say that peaceful protesters against police violence are guilty of inciting someone who shoots a cop if their rhetoric is in any way angry? The slope is steep and slippery, and they would exploit that to the hilt.
So the practical standard for pursuing incitement charges is understandably very high. I would say "Let's do something within our rights because violent psychopaths threaten us not to do it" is pretty far from meeting the incitement standard.
It's actually a slightly encouraging sign that right-wingers have learned that concept, since it's the foundation of nonviolent protest. In past decades they would have just formed lynch mobs and gone out looking for Middle Eastern-looking people to hang or beat to death. Instead they decided to exercise Constitutional rights and wait for psychos of a foreign ideology mirroring theirs to come after them - which is perfectly legitimate.
You can't be accused of incitement if what you're inciting is violence against yourself for exercising your rights. We should be flattered that they're cribbing our playbook.