We have a good standard in the US: is a statement a “true threat?” Violent rhetoric that doesn’t rise to the level of a true threat is a part of political expression. For example, the folks bringing guillotines to Jeff’s Bezos’s house are making a political point. So are Islamic imams advocating violence (in the abstract) against infidels.
Violent rhetoric that doesn’t rise to the level of a true threat is a part of political expression.
In the risk-benefit analysis, let's be sure we consider another factor: Unknown, unpredictable, armed, nut-job third parties who are triggered to act — sometimes in concert — when dog-whistle rhetoric goes viral.
Depending on the circumstances, a prudent analysis might limit 1A protection for certain types of rhetoric because of its unacceptable risk to others. That might be the case even for facially non-violent speech, e.g., so-called dog whistles.
It's been said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact [0] — neither is it a license to kill.
Comments
We have a good standard in the US: is a statement a “true threat?” Violent rhetoric that doesn’t rise to the level of a true threat is a part of political expression. For example, the folks bringing guillotines to Jeff’s Bezos’s house are making a political point. So are Islamic imams advocating violence (in the abstract) against infidels.
In the risk-benefit analysis, let's be sure we consider another factor: Unknown, unpredictable, armed, nut-job third parties who are triggered to act — sometimes in concert — when dog-whistle rhetoric goes viral.
Depending on the circumstances, a prudent analysis might limit 1A protection for certain types of rhetoric because of its unacceptable risk to others. That might be the case even for facially non-violent speech, e.g., so-called dog whistles.
It's been said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact [0] — neither is it a license to kill.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suic...
I disagree, I think the Constitution is a suicide pact. And I wouldn't trust anyone to define what's a "dog whistle."
Courts are up to the task — it's Con Law 101.