“What about the defense that speech cannot be aggression since it does not actually invade others’ property borders? It is true that a speech act per se is not an act of aggression: it does not intentionally cause the person or property of another to be physically and nonconsensually infringed upon.[7] But some speech acts can be classified as acts of aggression in the context in which they occur because they constitute the speaker’s use of means calculated to inflict intentional harm. One clear example of this is threats of force. The threat to stab someone does not actually pierce the victim’s skin; it is a “mere” speech-act, but it is still regarded as aggression.
In other cases, the act of speaking-communicating-and the other people with whom the speaker communicates serve as one’s means to achieve a certain end. The firing squad commander who yells “Fire!” is as responsible for the ensuing execution as the riflemen themselves. This is not because his spoken word was physically the cause of the victim’s death. His voice did not propel the bullets forward-and it did not have to. Instead, the firing squad commander is responsible for the execution because of what the command “Fire!” signifies in the context it was uttered; it signifies that the commander intends for the victim to die and is choosing to employ means-his firing squad-calculated to achieve that goal. The firing squad commander isn’t “merely” speaking; he is intentionally colluding with the shooters for the purpose of killing the victim. Likewise the president who orders a bomb be dropped is causing the bombing; he is employing the pilot and other underlings as his means. By being part of a certain organization and having certain relationships with other people, as a practical matter he is in a position to use other people to achieve his ends.[8]”
First off, you’ve gotta realize that courts WILL view some of these as “fighting words” or advancing a state of “clear and present danger”
1, 3, 5 are and will be viewed as crimes. 1 only if someone does it, but the radio host will be an accomplice
4 could still get the vocalizer in trouble. The free speech limits our courts recognize are riot incitement and lust (pornogrpahic politics) so it depends on the circumstances (the French revolution saw these kinds of pamphlets).
I think that if it should be legal to tell your wife that all blacks should be hanged, it should also be legal to broadcast it on the television. There is no difference except in the amount of people who listened to this, and this difference cannot affect legality. If the action itself is legal, then this action should be legal both when one person is involved and many people.
It depends on the context I think. If the radio presenter expected these words to be implemented then I think they would be culpable. Just look at the Rwandan genocide - does Radio Rwanda not hold any responsibility for what happened? I would maintain that they played a major role in this atrocity.
Actions in and of themselves are not criminalized, unless of course you sign a contract where you agree to be milked on demand for grazing on the United States citizen farm. Aggression that results in personal injury or property damage is criminalized. Despite the wonder of man made abstract symbols used to communicate, semantics is always problematic. We routinely use words that combine concepts of actions and results to characterize right or wrong. Murder can imply shooting + death. Theft can imply taking + loss.
Action + Result = Remedy
X + Y = Z
How do you solve unless two variables are known?
No result is mentioned. Who is claiming a crime occurred and what is the evidence of personal injury or property damage? The jouranist could certainly be on the hook for a restitution claim should the hated politician assert it was a credible threat with evidence of an adverse personal result.
No result is mentioned. Who is claiming a crime occurred and what is the evidence of personal injury or property damage? It is impossible to make anyone believe something. Only an individual can choose whether or not they will believe something
No result is mentioned. Who is claiming a crime occurred and what is the evidence of personal injury or property damage? Both parties are liable for any restitution claim should the plot be discovered before personal injury or property damage occured. But to characterize a restitution remedy as criminal with no result of personal injury or property damage is the realm of thought crime and pre-crime.
Someone incites a potentially violent crowd into commiting pogroms in the area.
It is impossible to make anyone believe something. Only an individual can choose whether or not they will believe something. If inciting is a crime all political activists, pundits, and voters should be charged with inciting theft.
Same as 4, but a pogrom actually occurs.
Same as 4, but persecute only people who initiate aggression unless someone makes a claim and has evidence the impossible is possible because you can in fact program human beings to believe something.
Someone tells his wife that all blacks should be hanged (someone overhears it).
No result is mentioned. Who is claiming a crime occurred and what is the evidence of personal injury or property damage?
Looks like my answer to the question as written is…
