If it's defined your way--that any "hate speech" would constitute incitement--how do you suppose Trump enforces that?

Incorrect. POTUS has enforcement power, and if any aspect of the law is vague, has room to operate.

Some court decisions leave a lot less wiggle room for an executive to enforce--that's the beauty of Brandenburg.

I chose Fox Propaganda for a reason. They're saying exactly what you're saying, just from the right and not the left.

Far-left Democrat slammed for ‘unhinged’ threat against prominent GOP senator: 'Inciting violence' Progressive Rep. Jasmine Crockett is being slammed online as “unhinged" for using violent rhetoric implying that Sen. Ted Cruz “has to be knocked over the head, like hard."

Yes, some are. But most people who hear hate speech online do not commit crimes.

Your logic to ban the speech because a vast minority act badly is ridiculous given the ability any charlatan leading a government could use to lock up the opposition.

www.foxnews.com/politics/far...

There are "some instances" of almost anything.

I think it'd be great to let Trump define free speech the way you do. I'm sure that wouldn't go badly.

But now I understand your logic: if something happens once, it's now "likely" to happen.

Hey, I just heard about a plane crashing. I am supposed to fly next month. In your opinion, is my plane likely to crash?

No, you used the manifesto analogy, which is not something we see in most mass shooting, as an example.

It's just that you don't know what you're talking about is all.

So if one in 3M may do something, shut 'em down?

Good idea. Black Lives Matter and Antifa are done. So is pretty much any political cause.

Good thinking. You're on to something here. I thought you Euros were the experts on why fascism like that isn't a good thing?

Some do. But you are arguing in bad faith once again, using examples that are more rare than common and pretending they happen all the time.

Just like your moronic take on "likely".

Then you don't understand math or are really, really stupid.

Actually, it's the 3r choice: you want to stifle the opinions you don't like. Our President loves people who think like you!

You said before it was likely, though, so why move the goalposts so dramatically here?

It's not likely. You simply support eliminating free speech.

Keep those ideas in Europe, where they work really well. I hear Germany has no Nazi issues these days.

Oh by the way: Andrew Tate has 3M listeners per month on all of his platforms.

And you're telling me it's LIKELY that someone hears what he's saying and then commits a crime??

We had worse free speech before that. As mentioned, the government used "clear and present danger" to lock up socialists for the horrible, horrible sin of passing out anti-war / anti-draft fliers.

Our mass shootings aren't really due to influencers but a myriad of other problems.

Maybe stick to what you know?

How many people listen to Andrew Tate?

Of those people, how many go out and attack someone?

It's not "likely".

And I'm not saying it never leads to violence. But likely is doing the heavy lifting for people who just want to demolish the concept of free speech.

You guys don't have a 1st Amendment. Thank God we do, so people with bad ideas can't squelch the speech they don't like by making up "it's likely to lead to violence sometime" when it isn't.

And even without imminence, you're out of your mind if you think that some asshole using hate speech online is LIKELY (as in more probable than not--forget about imminence here) to result in an attack.

If that was the case, we'd have far more attacks, would we not?

No I didn't...that's what imminence was defined as in Brandenburg, as I mentioned before. "Speech brigaded with action". They have to happen damn near simultaneously.

IMMINENT violence caused by hate speech online.

the blame for any type of action is on the perp--and that blame is theirs alone.

Remember for this to be incitement, the perp has to hear the words for the first time and act accordingly. If he heard it 10 minutes or so before and then goes and looks for a target, he hasn't been incited, he's been persuaded.

It's morally reprehensible for sure to put out the rhetoric, but....

You're telling me this scenario is likely.

1) Some asshole encourages followers on social media to "kill them all" and refers to a specific group.

2) Subscriber happens to see the video for the first time and with no time to think it over, happens to have a target he can attack at that very time.

It's "likely" is it?

How many times has that exact situation occurred?

Why are so many people willing to blame media alone (usually FoxNews alone, who only reaches 6M people a day) for the tens of millions of people who hold hateful, shitty views?

This nation's problems run far deeper than what they put out on their channel, and they start and and w. individuals.

Fairness Doctrine wasn't even enforced in the 80s (before it officially ended in 87) but big hair rock would be a welcome comeback!

Ranworth posted this in response to someone sharing that idiotic "Fairness Doctrine --> Limbaugh --> FoxNews --> etc" meme.

Irony at its best in referring to 'accurate observations' just before calling people "sheep". 😂

Stop sharing this stupid meme.

FoxNews is shit, but this meme is as akin to the bullshit they peddle.

"Behave like sheep" as in "consider a meme filled with misinformation to be 'accurate observations'"?

The Fairness Doctrine wasn't impactful then and would be even less so now.

I know, I know...it allowed Limbaugh to exist, it mandated equal time for both sides, there'd be no FoxNews without it....all of that is false.