I don't care to make any normative claims about whether or not Trump's rhetoric was permissible. Here, I just want to try and work out some account of what it means to incite a riot because I think popular talk about this issue is sloppy.
Shapiro cites Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to show that "it's a crime 'to intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner to cause another person to be in reasonable fear' and to 'incite or provoke violence where there is a likelihood that such violence will ensue.'" I take both of the quotes included in Shapiro's citation form a conjunction. For example, I don't think it's a crime to intentionally act in such a way to cause another person to be in reasonable fear (this would be bad news for Halloween haunted houses!).
One case that clearly violates Shapiro's citation is a KKK rally where a leader calls for violence against a particular ethnic group. The leader intentionally acted in such a way as to call members of that ethnic group to be in fear and he provoked violence that would likely be carried out by the members of the group. This much is clear.
Once case that clearly does not violate Shapiro's citation is a pastor who preaches about the crucifixion of Christ inspiring a mentally unstable congregant to go out and harm someone in the same way Christ was harmed. The pastor neither recklessly nor intentionally acted in such a way to cause fear or violence to anyone.
But things are less clear when we move away from these obvious cases. These days, political rhetoric is unfortunately quite tribalistic, where one group A expresses some clear animus toward group B at some kind of rally. Suppose some speaker at group A's event never explicitly calls for violence against group B, but he harshly criticizes group B, which inspires radical members of group A to do violence against some members against group B.
The speaker's guilt probably depends on the content of his critique and whether or not such content would provoke a reasonable person toward violence. If the speaker just says that group B is generally impolite, there's no rational case for violence against group B. However, there might be a rationale for violence if group A's speaker said something like this: "Group B is planning on murdering you by this evening. Right now, they're planning on destroying you at [x location]. Do with this what you will!"
Here, there is no explicit call for violence, though the speaker has caused reasonable people to be in fear. But this alone isn't sufficient for incitement; the content of what the speaker said should likely provoke violence. And it seems reasonable to think that the speaker's words would likely lead to violent self-defense against group B.
Still, the speaker has some plausible deniability. "I never told them to get violent! I never even called them to any sort of action except, 'Do with this what you will!' I'm innocent." On standards of incitement such that the speaker must explicitly call for violence, sure; however, on Shapiro's citation, it seems the speaker is in trouble.
No comments:
Post a Comment