• atzanteol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’ll want to read the “legacy” section of that Wikipedia page.

    • fiat_lux@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The part where they would need to prove “imminent” danger (without it being defined) and the Supreme Court overturned its previous decisions in making that ruling? Sure, it’s not a clear cut crime and would need to be its own case. That’s also why I originally qualified it with “if it creates a disaster”. I’m not suggesting immediate conviction without trial(s).

      I also think the media landscape is very different from 1969 when that ruling was made, and I disagree that calling for “revenge” against non-white people on the day of a specific rally is “abstract” like the ruling said, but that’s a topic for a different day.

      • atzanteol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The part where they would need to prove “imminent” danger (without it being defined)

        It’s been defined in case-law.

        If a person provides a steady supply of lies and manipulation with the intention of stirring up xenophobic outrage to fill their wallet

        From what I can tell this typically falls under political speech and is very much protected unless there is fraud or some other crime involved.

        • fiat_lux@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s been defined in case-law.

          It has been at least temporarily narrowed in scope by US courts, which I wouldn’t quite consider to be the same as defined - given we’re getting into the unnecessary details here. I’m not even convinced the US Supreme Court is always the best choice for ethical decision-making, let alone if the first amendment prevents all culpability for foreseeable risks.

          I’m also not the Supreme Court, or a lawyer. Hell, I’m not even American, and neither were the victims or the defendant. In my opinion, Jones is responsible and in my opinion, there is enough ambiguity in the law for Jones’ actions to be debated in courts in legal systems across the world where his audience lives.

          From what I can tell this typically falls under political speech and is very much protected unless there is fraud or some other crime involved.

          In the US, from a 1st amendment standpoint, probably, yes. This is why I also mentioned libel, financial extortion and fraud though as possible crimes. Culpability / responsibility doesn’t even need to be criminal or a violation of any jurisdiction’s free speech laws though, even if it has better odds of preventing future bullshit. Infowars may not only have obligations under the jurisdiction of their local courts.

          tl;dr shit is too complicated for social media posts written on my phone to convey with 100% accuracy for every audience member’s context. I did not intend to suggest that my opinion of responsibility matches the US Supreme Court’s in full or that the phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” implies the US court system has jurisdiction over the entire concept of free speech and responsibility or a murder case in Canadian court. I apologise for not making that clearer up front. The point was around cases where speech can create clear and foreseeable risks.