Read on Twitter
1/ Not that anyone cares, but I have taken the time to read the requirement for incitement in the US and the transcript of Trump's speech. I have come to the conclusion that in no way can this be legally considered incitement.
2/ The test for incitement is laid out in Bradenburg vs Ohio
The speech must be:
'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action' AND
'likely to incite or produce such action'
The speech must be:
'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action' AND
'likely to incite or produce such action'
3/ So lets look at what was said in terms of calls to action.
'We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women'
'We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women'
4/ 'I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.'
5/ 'So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.'
6/ There is clearly no call to violent action in any of these statements and in fact there is the opposite.
So lets look at what could be considered inflammatory in the speech that people have pointed to as incitement, as there is no call for violent action.
So lets look at what could be considered inflammatory in the speech that people have pointed to as incitement, as there is no call for violent action.
7/ For this we need to look at Hess V Indiana in which a university protester said
'We’ll take the fucking street again'
Sounds pretty inflammatory no? Certainly more so than what Trump said.
The Supreme court decided not......
'We’ll take the fucking street again'
Sounds pretty inflammatory no? Certainly more so than what Trump said.
The Supreme court decided not......
8/ 'since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.'
9/ The other case of note is NAACP v Claiborne Hardware Co. - Charles Evers directly threatened violence who broke a boycott of white business.
Direct calls to violence are pretty inciting no?
Well in fact no they aren't as per the Supreme Court.
Direct calls to violence are pretty inciting no?
Well in fact no they aren't as per the Supreme Court.
10/ 'Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases.'
Continued......
Continued......
11/ 'An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.'
12/ So stop saying this was incitement legally it was clearly not. And the assertion it was does nothing to bring the temperature down. If you hate Trump let him fade by ignoring it.
