Wait, it's legal to threaten incite violence against a former president? I guess I don't see a good reason why it would be, it's just something I would expect to be illegal.
Wait, it's legal to threaten incite violence against a former president?
I guess I don't see a good reason why it would be, it's just something I would expect to be illegal.
I'm going off of Wikipedia here, but in the US, speech that may incite future violence is protected, but encouraging eminent events is prohibited. That's not to say it's ever good, but not...
That's not to say it's ever good, but not technically illegal. The deplatforming of people because they are inciting violence is due to rather selective enforcement of platform rules (considering how long it takes for known bad actors to be removed).
Thanks for correcting me. In my own country I was sort of right, though: My translation: It appears inciting violence just for the fun of it is not a problem :-/
Thanks for correcting me.
In my own country I was sort of right, though:
Hij die in het openbaar, mondeling of bij geschrift of afbeelding, aanzet tot haat tegen of discriminatie van mensen of gewelddadig optreden tegen persoon of goed van mensen wegens hun ras, hun godsdienst of levensovertuiging, hun geslacht, hun hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid of hun lichamelijke, psychische of verstandelijke handicap, wordt gestraft met gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste een jaar of geldboete van de derde categorie.
My translation:
He who in public, verbally, in writing, or in an image, incites hatred of or discrimination against people, or violence against people or people's goods because of their race, religion or creed, their gender, their hetero- or homosexual sexuality, or their physical, psychological, or cognitive disability, will be punished with a prison sentence of at most one year or a fine of the third category.
It appears inciting violence just for the fun of it is not a problem :-/
Not a criminal issue doesn't necessarily mean it can't be seen incivil court. Sue for damages and/or restitution. I'm sure that would work in any country that is less litigious than the US while...
Not a criminal issue doesn't necessarily mean it can't be seen incivil court. Sue for damages and/or restitution. I'm sure that would work in any country that is less litigious than the US while still having a strong legal system.
It is also in the wording. I guess it could be read that he is saying Obama - kill yourself. But I am sure, to his followers, they read it more like the article describes. On a side note, does...
It is also in the wording.
Barack Obama is a treasonous… He belongs in jail. He belongs in Guantanamo Bay. I mean look -- I'm not saying this should happen -- but Barack Obama, find the tallest tree and a rope.
I guess it could be read that he is saying Obama - kill yourself. But I am sure, to his followers, they read it more like the article describes.
On a side note, does anyone know why they call Obama treasonous? I don't want to go down that rabbit hole myself, but if anyone knows off hand why I would be interested in hearing it.
As far as I understand, every time they've called President Obama treasonous, it's been a disagreement about the power of the executive branch. For example, people who watch Fox News tend to think...
On a side note, does anyone know why they call Obama treasonous? I don't want to go down that rabbit hole myself, but if anyone knows off hand why I would be interested in hearing it.
As far as I understand, every time they've called President Obama treasonous, it's been a disagreement about the power of the executive branch. For example, people who watch Fox News tend to think that executive orders are illegal, or at the very least an inappropriate abuse of power (unless their guy is doing it of course).
Outside of fundamental disagreements about the nature of the executive office, most claims tend to be conspiracy-fueled nonsense, hence their being peddled by the likes of InfoWars
Judd Legum has been doing some really in-depth accountability journalism, wherein he writes stories of platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.) and corporations still backing hateful/toxic...
Judd Legum has been doing some really in-depth accountability journalism, wherein he writes stories of platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.) and corporations still backing hateful/toxic messaging and their not really doing much to combat it.
What is so bad about being verified on twitter? From my understanding being verified means your account is a high risk target for being impersonated and the verify tick shows this is the real account.
What is so bad about being verified on twitter? From my understanding being verified means your account is a high risk target for being impersonated and the verify tick shows this is the real account.
Since it was also historically just for people who were "important" it came to be perceived as a status in and of itself: "Twitter thinks I'm important enough to have verification!" In this case,...
Since it was also historically just for people who were "important" it came to be perceived as a status in and of itself: "Twitter thinks I'm important enough to have verification!"
In this case, I think the verification should clearly stay, but he should probably just be banned.
Well, short of having someone watch every video before it gets uploaded (impossible), what are they supposed to do? They're removing the content as they find it.
YouTube does not appear to have systems in place that prevent InfoWars content from being uploaded.
Well, short of having someone watch every video before it gets uploaded (impossible), what are they supposed to do? They're removing the content as they find it.
That's an idea; But the issue would then be that you've now banned the entire platform from even discussing the topic, which is not their intention (and shouldn't be imo). While you could...
That's an idea; But the issue would then be that you've now banned the entire platform from even discussing the topic, which is not their intention (and shouldn't be imo). While you could theoretically work around this problem, it seems to me like the entire practice would cause more issues than it's worth.
Wait, it's legal to
threatenincite violence against a former president?I guess I don't see a good reason why it would be, it's just something I would expect to be illegal.
Inciting violence against anyone is illegal, I believe (in the US and in European countries).
I'm going off of Wikipedia here, but in the US, speech that may incite future violence is protected, but encouraging eminent events is prohibited.
That's not to say it's ever good, but not technically illegal. The deplatforming of people because they are inciting violence is due to rather selective enforcement of platform rules (considering how long it takes for known bad actors to be removed).
Thanks for correcting me.
In my own country I was sort of right, though:
My translation:
It appears inciting violence just for the fun of it is not a problem :-/
Not a criminal issue doesn't necessarily mean it can't be seen incivil court. Sue for damages and/or restitution. I'm sure that would work in any country that is less litigious than the US while still having a strong legal system.
It is also in the wording.
I guess it could be read that he is saying Obama - kill yourself. But I am sure, to his followers, they read it more like the article describes.
On a side note, does anyone know why they call Obama treasonous? I don't want to go down that rabbit hole myself, but if anyone knows off hand why I would be interested in hearing it.
As far as I understand, every time they've called President Obama treasonous, it's been a disagreement about the power of the executive branch. For example, people who watch Fox News tend to think that executive orders are illegal, or at the very least an inappropriate abuse of power (unless their guy is doing it of course).
Outside of fundamental disagreements about the nature of the executive office, most claims tend to be conspiracy-fueled nonsense, hence their being peddled by the likes of InfoWars
Being President while black without benefit of being Republican.
Judd Legum has been doing some really in-depth accountability journalism, wherein he writes stories of platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.) and corporations still backing hateful/toxic messaging and their not really doing much to combat it.
What is so bad about being verified on twitter? From my understanding being verified means your account is a high risk target for being impersonated and the verify tick shows this is the real account.
Since it was also historically just for people who were "important" it came to be perceived as a status in and of itself: "Twitter thinks I'm important enough to have verification!"
In this case, I think the verification should clearly stay, but he should probably just be banned.
Well, short of having someone watch every video before it gets uploaded (impossible), what are they supposed to do? They're removing the content as they find it.
That's an idea; But the issue would then be that you've now banned the entire platform from even discussing the topic, which is not their intention (and shouldn't be imo). While you could theoretically work around this problem, it seems to me like the entire practice would cause more issues than it's worth.