She should be fed feet-first through a wood chipper”, you would probably not be successfully prosecuted for incitement.
This is true, up until the point where she is actually fed feet-first through a wood chipper. That she was actually fed feet-first through a wood chipper is prima facie evidence that your rhetoric inspired the lawless action of which you spoke.
JollyG@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
In the context of internet weirdos talking online, posts that say a prosecutor should be fed feet-first through a wood chipper are rhetorical hyperbole and obviously not meant literally, even in the case that someone actually committed a murder by feeding a prosecutor feet-first through a wood chipper. Under these circumstances, the speech, while odious, enjoys strong first amendment protections.
For it to be unprotected speech, the rhetoric has to be reasonably likely to be intended to cause the crime, and a prosecution against the internet weirdos would fail for that reason. First because the rhetoric is not actually directed to incitement, it is a more general expression of outrage. The rhetoric is akin to “Someone ought to . . .” and not “You people over there by the wood chipper, do this thing. . .” Second, because the rhetoric has to be related to a crime that is imminent, as in: on the verge of happening, such that the rhetoric is reasonably likely to immediately cause the crime. If a bunch of internet weirdos are on their weirdo site gassing each other up, then a crime occurs at some point in the future, the crime is not immediately related to the rhetoric because it happened at a later date.
A prosecution would also fail if the rhetoric was unlikely to cause a crime even if the speaker intended it to. If the specific prosecutor that earned the ire of the internet weirdos was actually fed feet-first through a wood chipper then that would speak to the likelihood element. As such this factor is more favorable to the prosecution (the ones charging the incitement case, not the one fed feet feet first through the wood chipper, the facts are decidedly unfavorable for her), but even here I think the prosecution would have its work cut out for it as the facts surrounding the rhetoric point to an audiance that is not generally motivated to violence and accustomed to speakers making outlandish claims.
See Brandenburg V. Ohio for more
And I was misremembering my example case. It was not a prosecutor, it was a judge, and she was not corrupt in the traditional sense, just over-punitive according to the internet weirdos. Discussion about the incident from the internet weirdo magazine.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 10 hours ago
I think we’re saying much same thing. If she isn’t fed into a woodchipper, saying “she should be fed into a woodchipper” is obviously hyperbole, not incitement.
If she is actually fed into a woodchipper, it’s not obvious hyperbole anymore. Someone hearing you say “she should be fed into a woodchipper” and actually acting on that statement is pretty much the definition of “incitement”.
Technically, the prosecutor has to prove that your statements were proximal, and that you reasonably believed they could induce the act. But, the jury is weighing that proximity and belief with 20/20 hindsight and video of the mangled corpse.
The definition of “outlandish” is subject to reality. It is much easier to describe a possible outcome as “outlandish” when it has never occurred before. It is much harder to describe that same scenario as “outlandish” when the jury is retching over the crime scene photos while the prosecutor is saying you are to blame.
I’d suggest a bench trial.