That involves any time in the future, anything you did in the past, can come back to haunt you.
The first thing you're going to say is, I've never done anything that would warrant that. But that's not how cancel culture works. It's not in your eyes, it's in THEIR eyes.
This isn't going after wrongthink, this is going after someone shouting orders to a violent mob. That's a crime.
Cancel culture is about going after people who have merely exercised their first amendment rights. Incitement is not covered by free speech, it's one of the categories of unprotected speech.
Remember, rights and liberties come first. It is her right to be stupid. We cannot use the benchmark of someone said something, and someone did something as a result, so the person that said something, is at fault (always).
For starters, let's agree on something. I believe that we agree that this is the correct test for incitement and it is correctly cited here. I'll also say that I'm not trying to call for any new exceptions to the first amendment here.
Anyhow, the two prongs of the Brandenburg test are these:
The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
This speech was advising rioters who are actually rioting and who have tried already to destroy a particular statue on how to do so successfully.
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
They attacked the monument both nights. It wasn't merely "likely" to produce such action, it was directed towards helping people actually doing that action.
So... I have a hard time seeing how it doesn't meet the incitement standard. She was directing rioters on how to commit crimes during a riot. I'm sure there are plenty of items to quibble with there, like did the protesters actually listen to her or maybe they didn't have ropes so it doesn't count?
But this was clearly intended as a post inciting lawless action directed at an unlawful riot, so I believe that she should have to make that sort of argument via her lawyer, from the defendant's chair in court.
I can see how a reasonable person might differ, maybe they don't think there's enough of a connection between her and the rioters or maybe they think the rioters were going to do that anyway or what have you. But I personally see this as rising to the standard of incitement.
She was directing rioters towards targets. Legal minutia aside, this is exactly the sort of speech the incitement exception is intended to target.
So... I have a hard time seeing how it doesn't meet the incitement standard.
Did you read the Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) ? He literally stood in front of a group of clan members with inflammatory speech, and had his case overturned.
Given that Wray is still in charge, I question how effective they will be.
By all means, try--the FBI is a big organization--but I just don't see them being very effective here when Wray & Boente have worked long and hard as resistance operatives, e.g. by hiding exculpatory info on Flynn and covering up Spygate in general.
At least we got rid of Boente recently. Wray can't pack his desk fast enough to suit me, though.
You have to agree, that's a strawman. Because she's not.
Stupid liberal woman doth not an ISIS make.
I support more you reporting her to the FBI, than mobs calling on her to be fired.
The FBI will determine if the speech rises to the level of crime (It won't per the Brandenberg test) and then if they charge her, her employer will probably hear about it, and can decide then.
Mob rule is a bad idea. Eventually they will come for you.
You're advocating cancel culture?
That involves any time in the future, anything you did in the past, can come back to haunt you.
The first thing you're going to say is, I've never done anything that would warrant that. But that's not how cancel culture works. It's not in your eyes, it's in THEIR eyes.
This isn't going after wrongthink, this is going after someone shouting orders to a violent mob. That's a crime.
Cancel culture is about going after people who have merely exercised their first amendment rights. Incitement is not covered by free speech, it's one of the categories of unprotected speech.
I've written a few articles on this very subject.
You are require to satisfy two important questions to claim it is incitement, and it doesn't rise to that level. It is called the Brandenburg test.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-imminent-lawless-action
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-ohio
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
Hess v. Indiana (1973) https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-5290
You should read those. They are interesting.
Remember, rights and liberties come first. It is her right to be stupid. We cannot use the benchmark of someone said something, and someone did something as a result, so the person that said something, is at fault (always).
For starters, let's agree on something. I believe that we agree that this is the correct test for incitement and it is correctly cited here. I'll also say that I'm not trying to call for any new exceptions to the first amendment here.
Anyhow, the two prongs of the Brandenburg test are these:
This speech was advising rioters who are actually rioting and who have tried already to destroy a particular statue on how to do so successfully.
They attacked the monument both nights. It wasn't merely "likely" to produce such action, it was directed towards helping people actually doing that action.
So... I have a hard time seeing how it doesn't meet the incitement standard. She was directing rioters on how to commit crimes during a riot. I'm sure there are plenty of items to quibble with there, like did the protesters actually listen to her or maybe they didn't have ropes so it doesn't count?
But this was clearly intended as a post inciting lawless action directed at an unlawful riot, so I believe that she should have to make that sort of argument via her lawyer, from the defendant's chair in court.
I can see how a reasonable person might differ, maybe they don't think there's enough of a connection between her and the rioters or maybe they think the rioters were going to do that anyway or what have you. But I personally see this as rising to the standard of incitement.
She was directing rioters towards targets. Legal minutia aside, this is exactly the sort of speech the incitement exception is intended to target.
Also, for the second prong, we can point to this happening a mere 30 minutes later:
https://twitter.com/CharlieSigs/status/1267336627703119873
That certainly seems like incitement to immanent lawless action to me. UAB should be made to answer whether or not they will support this.
Did you read the Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) ? He literally stood in front of a group of clan members with inflammatory speech, and had his case overturned.
No, I believe in jail time for terroristic threats against the Washington Monument. Getting her fired is a consequence of her illegal actions.
You may not believe in cancel culture, but cancel culture believes in you.
You don't get to fight the war you want, fight back or get run over.
We are not the left, we should not adopt their mentality.
Mob rule is bad, eventually it will turn on YOU.
I am not advocating not fighting back. I am advocating, using brains instead of emotion.
Need to call someone? Call the FBI.
Given that Wray is still in charge, I question how effective they will be.
By all means, try--the FBI is a big organization--but I just don't see them being very effective here when Wray & Boente have worked long and hard as resistance operatives, e.g. by hiding exculpatory info on Flynn and covering up Spygate in general.
At least we got rid of Boente recently. Wray can't pack his desk fast enough to suit me, though.
Not digging up her past, diggin up her encouragement of terrorist activity this week. If she were ISIS wouldnt we report her?
You have to agree, that's a strawman. Because she's not.
Stupid liberal woman doth not an ISIS make.
I support more you reporting her to the FBI, than mobs calling on her to be fired.
The FBI will determine if the speech rises to the level of crime (It won't per the Brandenberg test) and then if they charge her, her employer will probably hear about it, and can decide then.
Mob rule is a bad idea. Eventually they will come for you.