> There's a MASSIVE and obvious 1st amendment issue here, but in the sense of "Incitement to murder isn't covered under the 1st amendment" sense.

It's not as clear-cut as you make it sound, and that's why the Brandenburg test is such an important concept: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

> The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:

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

Imminent is the keyword there. Saying "let's go kill that CEO" at the head of a mob outside their home isn't protected, as it passes the test - it is genuinely likely to result in the mob storming the house, as the mob is positioned to be able to do so as an immediate reaction to the speech telling them to, and the speaker knows it.

In contrast, consider some of the speech found to be protected by this standard:

> a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally to his fellow Klansmen, and after listing a number of derogatory racial slurs, he then said that “it's possible that there might have to be some vengeance [sic] taken.”

> In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co . (1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test and found that the speech was protected : “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. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”

Advocating violence in the abstract doesn't satisfy the imminence requirement. Unless there's a direct connection in time and place between the speaker and the lawless actor, it's protected.

user:	vueko
created:	September 4, 2024
karma:	65