• maporita@unilem.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    “inciting a riot” means, at the very least, telling people to go and riot. Burning a book is not, by any stretch of the definition “inciting a riot” (even though it may result in some people rioting).

    • Lord_Logjam@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The only reason anyone would publicly burn any religious book in public would be to create a reaction. I don’t necessarily agree with banning it but no one does it just for a laugh.

    • Aosih@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you acknowledge that doing it may cause a riot, how does that not fit into a loose definition of “inciting a riot”? I’m trying to think of a more innocent act that might start a riot that would obviously not be “inciting a riot”, and I’m struggling to come up with a counterexample.

      • maporita@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It might fit a loose definition but it doesn’t fit the legal definition (speaking about the US here). These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)

        “First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence”.
        .