Hacker News Reader

Comment by avip | Hacker News Reader

Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ?

It depends. Not sure of the threshold offhand, but I believe it has to do with “incitement of imminent lawlessness” — that is, whether your words are designed to cause specific violent acts (as opposed to just generally stirring up hate that ends up being violent).

Concrete examples: “Jews will not replace us” is protected speech; “everyone go out and find a Jew” to an angry mob is probably not.

Leaving that question aside, I believe there's a difference between that, and reporting, uncensored, that somebody else did. Presumably Israel is happy for the "right" people to report it, with the appropriate condemnation and editing. What that ends up amounting to is compelled speech. I know that's not quite the issue you're responding to, but I do believe that free speech requires the right to report that somebody said something that might be illegal itself, and that free speech also requires that you not be compelled to rebuke it with the appropriate government talking points to do so.

I think you can. I mean the Daily Stormer amongst other horrible hate-filled online publications are allowed to publish online, and US citizens are allowed to read it.

Meanwhile Israeli citizens cannot read Al Jazeera legally now.

Yes. Neo-Nazis serve as an obvious example. As long as you aren’t inciting imminent lawless actions you can say pretty much anything.

Or https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/pastors-praise-anti-ga...

If worded in a way to prevent outright calls to violence, then yes.

Um.

Had cops show up at the home of a child that was on a sports team of my daughter's. They were looking for her brother and took him in.

Afterwards we spoke more to her mother and found out that users in game forums had told him he could make these kinds of comments and it was free speech as long it wasn't a call to violence. Well I don't know the legalities, but I do know he was never welcome back at that school. (Nor even in the district for that matter.) Worse, the neighboring district got word, and they implemented their own machinations to ensure he was effectively banned from there as well. In the end, they sent him to live with relatives.

I wouldn't be so cavalier about telling people they can say things like this. It's like, well you can say anything. But if you say things that make oblique suggestions towards violence, expect to watched from that point on. And excluded from any activities that people believe would provide you opportunity to act on what they now suspect to be your intentions. You can't talk about indirect suggestions of violence against airliners, presidents, or students in high schools and still expect to be able to show up at the White House, or board an airliner, or go to the high school you attend. Society doesn't work like that these days.

I mean, sure, but the question was about the First Amendment.

Minors essentially don't have the same rights as adults.

> Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ?

You can not. Inciting violence and calls for criminal action is a well establish limit of the First Amendment, but that is not what they are doing from what I gathered in this thread.

From the poster a few levels above:

> In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas. Also the entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide political influence through media, not as an unbiased news agency.

Showing a video of an enemy of the country calling for genocide of that country is a newsworthy event that is part of journalistic practice. The American media showed Osama Bin Laden videos calling for the death of Americans, to report on him.

Please learn the difference of showing a video of a terrorist calling for genocide to report on him vs the news anchor/owner of that news company agreeing with that terrorist and joining that call for genocide.

America has other limits on free speech. Foreign control of media for example which I am not familiar with.

>You can not

There is more to it than that. The Supreme Court has held that “advocacy of the use of force” is only unprotected when it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

> You can not. Inciting violence and calls for criminal action is a well establish limit of the First Amendment, but that is not what they are doing from what I gathered in this thread.

Brandenburg v Ohio (the current standard for what constitutes incitement) literally says your free speech rights run up to and include advocacy for violent overthrow of the government. The limitation it establishes is "incitement to imminent lawless action", with heavy emphasis on "imminent".

This is the correct answer. I think people are approaching this emotionally. The problem is if you start infringing on it there simply is no end.

kind of makes sense for americans. I feel like "over throw the government" is a core part of american history and culture.

I'd hope this only applies to the government though and not towards groups of people or ethnicity.

There is still a question of whether that is the correct limit. Many people think it is. Obviously Israel disagrees. We can’t use the First Amendment and SCOTUS precedent to uncover aughts, especially to another country.

However, if you agree that Brandenburg set the correct limit, you can conditionalize aid on it. It’s just not a first principles approach.

Learned something new. Thank you.

> You can not. Inciting violence and calls for criminal action is a well establish limit of the First Amendment, but that is not what they are doing from what I gathered in this thread.

Saying "ethnic group XXX should be exterminated" does not meet the standard for incitement. I don't know why the debate has become about US law but I'm even more puzzled about so many people confidently stating, wrongly, that the US bans hate speech. The US has frequently been criticized by Europeans for this exact reason -- in their view, the US stance permitting hate speech is irresponsible.

Apparently as far as I learned from a lawyer the answer is yes. If you are not acting or planning to act on it what you described is protected under free speech.

That’s complicated. The US has criminal and civil law. With regards to criminal law in terms of expression and liberties there are very few things you cannot do. The default is to lean towards liberty always.

In terms of civil law you can generally sue anyone for anything at anytime unless there is existing law or contracts halting further civil actions.

You can't sue someone for calling for violence, including racially motivated violence. Incitement is a crime, but incitement happens when you direct someone to take a specific action and they do exactly what you said (e.g., you tell them to go beat someone and they do it).

Balaji Srinivasan - "Take total control of your neighborhood. Push out all Blues. Tell them they’re ... unwelcome Just as Blues ethnically cleanse me out of San Francisco, like, push out all Blues." https://youtu.be/EqJoXaNFFjY?si=x3HD6-P9n98KTHGi&t=14723

Actually yes.

I mean, that’s what the KKK does.

> Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ?

Yes. We see this with open chants of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and "Globalize the Intifada"

...as long as the call is not likely to produce "imminent lawless action". Brandenburg v. Ohio was a decision by the Supreme Court establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for determining when speech advocating illegal conduct is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court held that speech is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

> We see this with open chants of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"

I particularly object to taking worst possible interpretation, and labelling the slogan as a call for ethnic cleansing.

The phrase "will be free" would not normally be interpreted this was in in any other conflict.

> "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"

For several decades, Israel's Likud party (currently in power) election manifesto was...

"From the river to the sea, there will be only Israeli sovereignty".

Perhaps that's where the Palestinians got it?

"Palestine will be free" is not "openly calling for murder".

This is not an argument. To address my argument, you'd have to show that "free" meant "sovereignty". But you cannot, because that's not what it means. It means the destruction of Israel and the expulsion - at best - of its people. It does not mean "living in peaceful coexistence with". What else do you think it means? What else could it possibly mean?

> It means the destruction of Israel and the expulsion - at best - of its people.

Literally nothing in the definition of the word means what you are attempting to make it mean:

1 able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another: I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free | a free choice.

• [with infinitive] able or permitted to take a specified action: you are free to leave.

• (of a state or its citizens or institutions) subject neither to foreign domination nor to despotic government: a free press.

• historical not a slave: the poor among the free men joined the slaves against the rich.

• [in names] denoting an ethnic or political group actively opposing an occupying or invading force, in particular the groups that continued resisting the Germans in the Second World War after the fall of their countries: the Free Dutch, Free Polish, and Free Norwegian fleets. See also Free French.

2 [often as complement] not or no longer confined or imprisoned: the researchers set the birds free | police were forced to let him walk free.

• not physically obstructed or fixed: he tried to kick his legs free | she smiled, leaned back, and waved a free arm in the air.

• Physics (of power or energy) disengaged or available. See also free energy.

• Physics & Chemistry not bound in an atom, a molecule, or a compound: the atmosphere of that time contained virtually no free oxygen. See also free radical.

• Linguistics denoting a linguistic form that can be used in isolation.

3 not subject to engagements or obligations: she spent her free time shopping.

• (of a facility or piece of equipment) not occupied or in use: the bathroom was free.

4 (free of/from) not subject to or affected by (something undesirable): our salsas are free of preservatives.

5 given or available without charge: free healthcare.

6 using or expending something without restraint; lavish: she was always free with her money.

• frank or unrestrained in speech, expression, or action: he was free in his talk of revolution.

• archaic overfamiliar or forward.

7 (of literature or music) not observing the normal conventions of style or form.

• (of a translation) conveying only the broad sense; not literal.

8 Sailing (of the wind) blowing from a favourable direction to the side or aft of a vessel.

#4 is the sense Palestinians mean it while well-meaning Westerners hear #1 and #2. The movement exploits the ambiguity of this term to dogwhistle and get all the no kidding white-supremacist, anti-Semites on board. To play in the bailey, so to speak.

Free as in judenfrei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenfrei

Reply on news.ycombinator.com