Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
akiba | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 Such a difficult topic. Hoping nostr will be a better place to have genuine conversations.

What about speech that incites violence alongside hatred? Should people be freely allow to tell others to burn hotels filled with people?
▲ ▼
whoeverlovesDigit | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Until it actually happens, yes.

Once a hotel actually gets burned down, then it's fine to hold people accountable for making that happen, but if nothing is actually happening except words then there is no crime because any legitimate government must recognize freedom of speech.
▲ ▼
Mike Dilger | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 That is reasonable jurisprudence.  No victim, no crime.
▲ ▼
Mike Dilger | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 I don't think direct incitement to violence is useful, and most legal scholars don't consider it protected under the 1st amendment.

There are a lot of other kinds of speech that most free speech advocates recognize as not helpful and potentially illegal such as fraud, disclosing secrets when under an NDA, perverting the course of justice (although that is debated, e.g. Tommy Robinson), disclosing troop movements during wartime, etc.
▲ ▼
Aspie96 | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 > and most legal scholars don't consider it protected under the 1st amendment.

While I don't think incitement of illegal violence should be legal, I think whether scholars think that something is legal, under the status quo of some country, is a terrible metric for whether it ought to be legal, and the standards it should have.
Laws must be followed, but can be wrong and can be opposed.