Incitement of Violence

[Matt Faherty]

Should it be illegal for an individual to purposefully incite violence against another person or property?

This is an article by Walter Block which explains his position on the legality of the incitement of violence: http://lewrockwell.c...k/block201.html

Useful Quote (actually from Murray Rothbard in the article):

"Should it be illegal …. to ‘incite to riot’? Suppose that Green exhorts a crowd: ‘Go! Burn! Loot! Kill!’ and the mob proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these criminal activities. Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him, because of his exhortation, at all responsible for their crimes. ‘Inciting to riot,’ therefore, is a pure exercise of a man’s right to speak without being thereby implicated in crime. On the other hand, it is obvious that if Green happened to be involved in a plan or conspiracy with others to commit various crimes, and that then Green told them to proceed, he would then be just as implicated in the crimes as are the others – more so, if he were the mastermind who headed the criminal gang. This is a seemingly subtle distinction which in practice is clearcut – there is a world of difference between the head of a criminal gang and a soap-box orator during a riot; the former is not properly to be charged simply with ‘incitement.’"

I am personally leaning towards Rothbard/Block's view on the issue, but I am not completely there yet. Given the context laid out in the above quote, I agree with them, but I worry about applying the same principle to emergency situations. For instance:

I am walking down the street with an armed friend and I suddenly yell out to him, "Oh my God! That guy behind you is going to shoot you! Quick! Shoot him!" My friend may very well turn around and shoot the innocent third individual without a thought due to the misinofrmation I have provided to him. My friend can't be blamed for reacting in such a way since he had a valid reason to suspect his life was in danger. It is technically true that my firend could have paused and surveyed the situation before following my advice, but to do so would have have put him in grave danger.

Another version of this scenario is "yell fire in a movie theater" though I don't really buy this one as much since in that scenario, a rational individual should be able to pause an examine the scene before acting.

[Dglgmut]

Creating a false threat like in your own example could potentially be treated as the equivalent to the actual threat. I think Rothbard would have found the person yelling guilty of murdering the man who ends up being shot.

[anthony]

Should it be illegal for an individual to purposefully incite violence against another person or property?

This is an article by Walter Block which explains his position on the legality of the incitement of violence: http://lewrockwell.c...k/block201.html

Useful Quote (actually from Murray Rothbard in the article):

"Should it be illegal …. to ‘incite to riot’? Suppose that Green exhorts a crowd: ‘Go! Burn! Loot! Kill!’ and the mob proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these criminal activities. Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him, because of his exhortation, at all responsible for their crimes. ‘Inciting to riot,’ therefore, is a pure exercise of a man’s right to speak without being thereby implicated in crime. On the other hand, it is obvious that if Green happened to be involved in a plan or conspiracy with others to commit various crimes, and that then Green told them to proceed, he would then be just as implicated in the crimes as are the others – more so, if he were the mastermind who headed the criminal gang. This is a seemingly subtle distinction which in practice is clearcut – there is a world of difference between the head of a criminal gang and a soap-box orator during a riot; the former is not properly to be charged simply with ‘incitement.’"

I am personally leaning towards Rothbard/Block's view on the issue, but I am not completely there yet. Given the context laid out in the above quote, I agree with them, but I worry about applying the same principle to emergency situations. For instance:

I am walking down the street with an armed friend and I suddenly yell out to him, "Oh my God! That guy behind you is going to shoot you! Quick! Shoot him!" My friend may very well turn around and shoot the innocent third individual without a thought due to the misinofrmation I have provided to him. My friend can't be blamed for reacting in such a way since he had a valid reason to suspect his life was in danger. It is technically true that my firend could have paused and surveyed the situation before following my advice, but to do so would have have put him in grave danger.

Another version of this scenario is "yell fire in a movie theater" though I don't really buy this one as much since in that scenario, a rational individual should be able to pause an examine the scene before acting.

Generally, "incitement" seems to be used to shift or share responsibility for nefarious activities, narurally by the people

who actually carry out the crimes. Often in 'liberal' societies the person who first 'suggested', 'prompted' or - "caused" -

a course of actions, is the one the State, media and public condemn the most. Which alone says plenty.

I think incitement should disappear off the statute books in a free society.

One either is in full command of one's actions, or not - if some society predominantly does not accept this, well, it's in trouble, anyway, and no laws

are going to correct it. To "rabble rouse" you first have to have a rabble.

I agree with the Block/Rothbard conclusion, then, but for different, partially over-lapping, reasons - moral reasons above and prior to individual rights' reasons like freedom of speech..

However, there IS a fine line between 'criminal master-mind' and 'incitor' I've been puzzling over and all I can come up with

is the distinction of anticipated material gain, to make him culpable or not.

[BaalChatzaf]

Should it be illegal for an individual to purposefully incite violence against another person or property?

It already is. Speech which has the immediate or near immediate effect of fomenting a riot or lynch mob is not protected by the First Amendment or so the courts have held.

Discussing violent revolution is legal. Fomenting a violent revolution or insurrection is not.

As long as speech does not produce the immediate effects of violence and disorder it is protected under the first amendment.

However, even protected speech (or writing) which is false and produce financial damage can be ruled a tort under the libel and slander laws.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jts]

Should it be illegal for an individual to purposefully incite violence against another person or property?

If so, then maybe the Koran should be banned.

[william.scherk]

Interesting thread and comments. Matt Faherty asks if it should be illegal for an individual to purposefully incite violence against another person or property.

Should it be illegal for an individual to purposefully incite violence against another person or property?

[ . . . ]

Another version of this scenario is "yell fire in a movie theater" though I don't really buy this one as much since in that scenario, a rational individual should be able to pause an examine the scene before acting.

The examples that illustrate "incitement to violence" are not representative of the offence (inciting violence) under consideration -- I think it much better to examine a case or hypothetical that is realistic, and that conforms to cases that have actually been tried and judged and appealed on free speech grounds.

Falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre comes from a famous judicial decision**. It has taken on baggage as a metaphor and as an example of overweaning government intrusion on acts of speech (the case at law concerned criminalizing anti-draft communications during WWI). Does it pertain to urging violence or violent action? No.

As a thought-experiment, the trope of Fire! involves a communication designed to get a reaction (leave the crowded place) -- it is provocative. If false (knowingly false), if it provokes a panic and injuries or death result, have there been actual prosecutions? †

Generally, "incitement" seems to be used to shift or share responsibility for nefarious activities, narurally by the people who actually carry out the crimes.

Incitement to violence is rarely charged in the West, and each case needs examing for it particulars. In Australia this year two men were charged with "recruiting persons to engage in criminal activity and publishing to incite the commission of a crime" (details here).

The situation in the USA has been clarified at the Supreme Court in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. In this case previous curbs on speech were struck down and a 'test' was laid down, now known as the Brandenburg test. This test considers three things: intent, imminence, and likelihood. See the case of anti-war protester Gregory Hess, who was was ultimately cleared of wrongdoing by the Supremes in 1973. In this appeal, the conviction of Hess was overturned because there was judged to be no 'clear and present danger.'

Often in 'liberal' societies the person who first 'suggested', 'prompted' or - "caused" -a course of actions, is the one the State, media and public condemn the most. Which alone says plenty.

Tony, can you give a few examples that illustrate this contention?

I think incitement should disappear off the statute books in a free society. One either is in full command of one's actions, or not - if some society predominantly does not accept this, well, it's in trouble, anyway, and no laws are going to correct it.

That is fine as an opinion on laws governing incitement to violence. You want them removed, with nothing to replace them. This would make me free to incite violence upon your person. I could freely urge other folks to attack you or your property or your family.

To "rabble rouse" you first have to have a rabble. I agree with the Block/Rothbard conclusion, then, but for different, partially over-lapping, reasons - moral reasons above and prior to individual rights' reasons like freedom of speech.. However, there IS a fine line between 'criminal master-mind' and 'incitor' I've been puzzling over and all I can come up with is the distinction of anticipated material gain, to make him culpable or not.

I hope you continue to play examples or scenarios in your mind. Consider your own country and its laws against incitement to violence. Consider a situation of violence and raw emotion, and the power of demagogues to encourage violence -- as with the charges brought against Julius Malema.

__________________

** (Wikipedia article on Schenck vs United States.)

† The Wiki article leads to a couple of historical tragedies that followed upon a false alarm. See the sad tale of "Fire!" in the case of the Italian Hall distaster of 1913.

[BaalChatzaf]

Should it be illegal for an individual to purposefully incite violence against another person or property?

If so, then maybe the Koran should be banned.

Only when read aloud to a congregation of Jihadi Martyrs

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

WSS: This, here, is an irrational, patriarchal and violent society, while I'm envisaging (above) a

society of the mainly rational, self-responsible. iow, it's too late, we are already "in trouble" here, and from killings of elderly (white) farmers, to rapes of lesbians (for their 'correction')to mob xenophobia against struggling refugees from Somalia, Zim and other countries, etc,etc - fomented by leaders: political, unionist and religious - the incitement laws have some, minimal purpose, at least to make us feel better about ourselves.

Not a lot of effect, though. But...we may as well keep the laws. An unfree nation expects the

worst of its citizens, and gets the worst.

[caroljane]

WSS: This, here, is an irrational, patriarchal and violent society, while I'm envisaging (above) a

society of the mainly rational, self-responsible. iow, it's too late, we are already "in trouble" here, and from killings of elderly (white) farmers, to rapes of lesbians (for their 'correction')to mob xenophobia against struggling refugees from Somalia, Zim and other countries, etc,etc - fomented by leaders: political, unionist and religious - the incitement laws have some, minimal purpose, at least to make us feel better about ourselves.

Not a lot of effect, though. But...we may as well keep the laws. An unfree nation expects theO

worst of its citizens, and gets the worst.

Oh, Tony! It is any nation, not only the unfree, that acknowledges the worst in human nature through the laws. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst is all any society can do.

It is no comfort I know, but this bleeding heart liberal bled for South Africa during apartheid, and still bleeds for her now.

[anthony]

That is deeply appreciated, Carol.

[Dglgmut]

Rothbard simplified every human right by identifying them as extensions of our natural right to property (starting with self-ownership). Obviously this has been argued about before on this forum, but a point that is relevant here is about free speech:

Take, for example, the "human right" of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate "right to free speech"; there is only a man's property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.

Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market, 2nd ed. (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1977), pp. 238–39.

And lol at "the worst in human nature", as if human nature is the threat rather than bad choices.

[caroljane]

Rothbard simplified every human right by identifying them as extensions of our natural right to property (starting with self-ownership). Obviously this has been argued about before on this forum, but a point that is relevant here is about free speech:

Take, for example, the "human right" of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate "right to free speech"; there is only a man's property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.

Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market, 2nd ed. (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1977), pp. 238–39.

And lol at "the worst in human nature", as if human nature is the threat rather than bad choices.

ok then, "the worst choices of human nature"

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Human nature most certainly is a threat at times.

When people snap, for instance, they are not making a conscious choice. Many who commit murder in that state don't even remember doing it afterwards.

But snapping is a part of human nature. We are all capable of snapping under the right conditions. It comes built-in.

The issue is not choice or human nature. Both exist as potential threats and they depend on other factors to come into being as such. Neither standalone choice nor standalone human nature cuts it as danger. Talk about a false dichotomy rooted in oversimplification...

Learning how to deal with this, including learning the proper elements and contexts to identify and judge it correctly, is one of the tasks of ethics.

Michael

[Dglgmut]

Human nature most certainly is a threat at times.

What? If you're talking about people legitimately pleading insanity, that's a reasonable stipulation... but what part of human nature are laws to protect us from? We can't have laws that assume that everybody is insane... obviously.

My point was that human nature is not something to be managed by government--ironically made up of humans.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dglgmut,

I'm not talking about pleading anything. Or insanity.

I'm talking about human nature being more that you insinuate it is and the false dichotomy of pitting human nature against choice as alternative premises to an issue where neither serve.

I'm talking about bad logic.

And then there's this: managed by government?

No.

That's another oversimplification.

Prohibited by government from acting on the nasty human nature urges to the detriment of other people and/or their property, on pain of punishment. And restrained by force if caught in the act or with reasonable assurance that the act is a clear and present danger to someone.

That's more like it.

I understand "managed" to mean more than that.

Michael

[anthony]

Speech is not force.

Presuming so, is a symptom of the basic fallacy that man is non-volitional, non-independent and a product

of the collective, to which he is answerable. That he can't help himself, but to act on disinformation

and urging to violence - automatically.

It's an entirely bleak view of humanity.

"Incitememt" then, could well be an 'anti-concept', I'm thinking. In anything like an objective society,

the full weight of law must come down on those who enact the offence. "Who put you up to it?"- is at best secondary, at worst an evasion.

[BaalChatzaf]

Speech is not force.

But it can be a kind of fraud leading to violence or panic. Think of the old saw: Yelling fire in a crowded theater (when there is no fire)

Fraudulent speech / writing leading to acquire the assets of another falsely is a felony and therefore punishable.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Speech is not force.

But it can be a kind of fraud leading to violence or panic. Think of the old saw: Yelling fire in a crowded theater (when there is no fire)

Fraudulent speech / writing leading to acquire the assets of another falsely is a felony and therefore punishable.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm shaky on laws, but fraud comes under theft, surely? Misrepresentation, or reneging on

a contract, for gain, isn't it? The only connection to freedom of speech - or incitement - is

it's carried out orally or verbally. Theft should be punished, and contracts protected within

proper individual rights.

[Dglgmut]

Dglgmut,

I'm not talking about pleading anything. Or insanity.

I'm talking about human nature being more that you insinuate it is and the false dichotomy of pitting human nature against choice as alternative premises to an issue where neither serve.

I'm talking about bad logic.

And then there's this: managed by government?

No.

That's another oversimplification.

Prohibited by government from acting on the nasty human nature urges to the detriment of other people and/or their property, on pain of punishment. And restrained by force if caught in the act or with reasonable assurance that the act is a clear and present danger to someone.

That's more like it.

I understand "managed" to mean more than that.

Michael

There is no "nasty" human nature... Nothing is built into us purely for nastiness. Fear, meant to protect us, can sometimes result in destructive acts.

If a person is starving, with no way of getting food but by stealing it, that would be human nature contributing to a crime... but the law, which acts as an extension of the victims right to retaliation, is not specifically meant to prevent this. Like two men fighting over a piece of furniture to float on after their boat sank... if one man attacks the other to save himself, this is human nature, and though it should be punishable by law, that is not the reason the law is in place... and in these situations the rights of other people, unfortunately, are in conflict with the legitimate needs of the criminals.

So, the law should not assume that offenders will be in a state of danger, and be driven to commit crimes by their human nature (that which is generally in all humans--so no, a specific choice made by an individual does not fall under human nature in this sense)... if ever someone is in such a state, they have the option to break the law, which may be moral in their situation, but that includes dealing with the punishment.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is no "nasty" human nature... Nothing is built into us purely for nastiness.

Heh.

Try running a forum sometime. It makes you change your mind.

Michael