1. La Doctrina de Brandenburg: Incitación a la Violencia Inminente.
La jurisprudencia estadounidense, especialmente el caso Brandenburg v. Ohio, establece un umbral muy alto para restringir el discurso. Solo la incitación a una acción ilegal inminente y probable no está protegida por la Primera Enmienda.
- Incitement to violence is not protected speech under the first amendment of the united states constitution. The supreme court established in brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 that speech intended and likely to produce imminent lawless action does not receive constitutional protection.
- Fun fact unless you are specifically advocating for violence and are likely to effect that violence, your speech is protected by the first amendment. So yes, people have a right to say things.
- The first amendment does not protect speech inciting imminent violence or lawless action, as established in the brandenburg v. Ohio case.
- Inciting violence isnt illegal and is in fact protected by the first amendment. Its only speech intended to and likely to incite imminent lawless action thats unprotected and the courts have long consistently held imminent to mean essentially right now. Its a very tough bar to clear.
2. Distinción entre Discurso de Odio Protegido y Amenazas Criminales.
Existe un debate constante sobre dónde termina la libertad de expresión y comienza el crimen. Aunque el discurso de odio en sí mismo es a menudo protegido, las amenazas directas o la incitación que cruza la línea hacia la violencia son universalmente condenadas y consideradas ilegales.
- Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the first amendment. Its a crime.
- Hate speech is free speech. Remember that the court ruled hate speech is not a crime. Inciting violence or rallying crowds to start a riot or attack an individual or institution, like what trump did on jan 6, 2021, is not free speech.
- Incitement to violence, defamation, fighting words, obscenity, and true threats are the common forms of expression that are not protected by the first amendment because they pose direct harm or risk to individuals or public safety. Lets all be very clear free speech is limited.
- Wait a minute. Hate speech is not fully protected by the first amendment especially when it involves inciting violence, true threats, and harassment or discrimination every thing else hes right.
3. El Impacto de la Retórica Política y la Violencia Estocástica.
El archivo subraya la preocupación de que los líderes políticos y los medios de comunicación utilicen un lenguaje divisivo que, aunque no cumpla con el umbral legal de incitación inminente, fomenta la hostilidad y conduce a la violencia real (terrorismo estocástico).
- When political leaders call for violence, believe them. Terroristic threatening is not protected speech.
- Rhetoric can incite violence its called stochastic terrorism. People asking to stop platforming someone who only uses their account to spread hate promote violence is not harassment dear god. Its the bare minimum for safety.
- The current administration needs to stop inciting violence! why is this being allowed? its hate speech.
- The demonization and dehumanization of people using lies to sow division, distrust, and incite violence should not be protected speech. Doesnt matter who does it. Its wrong.
- The free speech for me but not for thee attitude trump embodies is dangerous, divisive, and helps create, not quell, the conditions for political violence.