Hacker News Reader

> Violent speech is pretty strongly protected under modern First Amendment law

I should clarify that by "violent speech" I just meant it as a colloquialism of the more technical Fighting Words Doctrine. That is, "speech is violent speech IFF it disturbs the peace."

View on HN

That's a common perception, and I tend to agree it's a moral standard we should hold people to, but the fighting words doctrine prohibits only speech which will immediately disturb the peace. There's no exception in current law for speech which will inevitably but nondeterministically cause something bad to happen.

> That is, "speech is violent speech IFF it disturbs the peace."

Disturbing peace? Isn’t that very much under the scope of the BLM associated rioting?

Like we’re talking many buildings public and otherwise burned to the ground. Billions of dollars of damage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com