Hacker News
points by _heimdall 1 day ago | 0 comments
I get that we have laws on the books making this illegal, but I still 100% disagree that the laws are constitutional.

People can say whatever they want without hurting anyone. In the case of incitement of violence, the issue is the person(s) who actually committed the violence, not a tweet online.

[–] Timwi 1 day ago
That is a very American perspective, which I like to think many people in the civilized world find irresponsible. (In the literal sense. You don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions.)
[–] _heimdall 1 day ago
The line must be drawn somewhere, we don't hold everyone responsible for every action they take.

I'd compare "inciting violence" to a woman dressing in provocative clothing in a bad area of town late at night. Very few people would blame the woman and say she's legally responsible if she's attacked, I hold the same line on speech.

Say what you want, dress how you want, it doesn't matter. If another person actually causes harm they can't shirk the blame off on you, they made the choice to commit violence.

[–] Timwi 1 day ago
Nobody is talking about shirking any blame off. Maybe this is our disconnect. You think there must be one singular person to blame entirely. That if someone is held accountable for a consequence of their action, then no one else can. That is not how the real world works.
[–] _heimdall 1 day ago
No you are describing a scenario where one is shirking blame. One person commits a violent crime against another and you aren't holding them entirely accountable for their actions, your looking to who they may have listened to and what they may have heard such that some blame belongs there.

Notably you didn't engage with my analogy at all. Would you tell a victim of sexual assault that they were partly to blame based on their clothing choices or decision to be in a particular part of town a particular time of day? If not, how would you legally distinguish the two scenarios?

[–] ChrisRR 1 day ago
The laws are the constitution
[–] _heimdall 1 day ago
Laws and the constitution are very different.

Procedurally they require different actions to create or change. More fundamentally though, the constitution protects rights while laws limit them.