• atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The part where they would need to prove “imminent” danger (without it being defined)

    It’s been defined in case-law.

    If a person provides a steady supply of lies and manipulation with the intention of stirring up xenophobic outrage to fill their wallet

    From what I can tell this typically falls under political speech and is very much protected unless there is fraud or some other crime involved.

    • fiat_lux@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s been defined in case-law.

      It has been at least temporarily narrowed in scope by US courts, which I wouldn’t quite consider to be the same as defined - given we’re getting into the unnecessary details here. I’m not even convinced the US Supreme Court is always the best choice for ethical decision-making, let alone if the first amendment prevents all culpability for foreseeable risks.

      I’m also not the Supreme Court, or a lawyer. Hell, I’m not even American, and neither were the victims or the defendant. In my opinion, Jones is responsible and in my opinion, there is enough ambiguity in the law for Jones’ actions to be debated in courts in legal systems across the world where his audience lives.

      From what I can tell this typically falls under political speech and is very much protected unless there is fraud or some other crime involved.

      In the US, from a 1st amendment standpoint, probably, yes. This is why I also mentioned libel, financial extortion and fraud though as possible crimes. Culpability / responsibility doesn’t even need to be criminal or a violation of any jurisdiction’s free speech laws though, even if it has better odds of preventing future bullshit. Infowars may not only have obligations under the jurisdiction of their local courts.

      tl;dr shit is too complicated for social media posts written on my phone to convey with 100% accuracy for every audience member’s context. I did not intend to suggest that my opinion of responsibility matches the US Supreme Court’s in full or that the phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” implies the US court system has jurisdiction over the entire concept of free speech and responsibility or a murder case in Canadian court. I apologise for not making that clearer up front. The point was around cases where speech can create clear and foreseeable risks.