|
|
|
|
|
by denton-scratch
1410 days ago
|
|
1 and 2 are clear incitements to violence, and are clearly illegal already. I don't know about 3; that appears to be a possibly truthful statement about the speaker's state of mind, and truthful or not, it seems legitimate to me. IANAL. |
|
> [That is a] clear incitement to violence, and [is] clearly illegal already.
Not in the US it's not. Clear and present danger, not hypothetical horseshit. I'm shocked at how unfamiliar censorship maximalists are with the current state of speech rights. I think it's why they think that censoring anti-vanilla ice cream speech or anti-Nolan Batman films speech is such a small step.
Every single would-be censor thinks it's illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater, and don't realize that phrase was used to jail someone for anti-war speech.
What makes you think that "incitements to violence" are illegal? Is is that "incitement" is a very legal-sounding word?