Taking away the right for someone to speak their mind is too much power for one individual or group, and is ripe for abuse, so it's better to not do it at all.
It is a risky business, but so are many others: food and drug regulation, road regulation, flight regulation etc. - the case must be made why freedom of speech is such a special right as opposed to any other action, such as selling food, driving cars, or building planes.
>Taking away the right for someone to speak their mind is too much power for one individual or group
We already do this globally, with copyright law, or less controversially, laws against threats, assault and child pornography. This at least shows that there is some scope, and unless that scope is a dogma, it should be open for questioning - either in broadening or narrowing.
If I describe to you exactly how you might go about murdering someone, and they get murdered, I'm likely to be a suspect, and if you're charged, I'll be charged as an accessory. If I rouse a group of people into flipping over cars, breaking windows, and hurling rocks at the police, I'll be charged with incitement. If I yell fire in a crowded theater... I can't recall what the charge is but it's not good (endangerment?). If I con the police into arresting you for something you didn't do, I can be charged for that as well (and you probably ought to also sue me for civil penalties).
If all of that is criminal, then it's not much of a stretch to include escalation to hate crimes as a prosecutable offense. Grooming people toward these activities might be a grey area, but it's a grey area, not an unassailable one.
IANAL, but this doesn't sound quite right. I think they need to be able to show mens rea on your part, that is, that you actually believed the person might commit murder and deliberately helped them.
if you agree with my nitpick, then all of your examples show a clear intention to incite others to do specific material harm.
on the other hand, if someone says "X group doesn't deserve to live", it's hard to say whether they are deliberately inciting violence. if X is saints fans, you might reasonably assume the person is joking. if X is a marginalized group, it's still hard to say whether it's an incitement of violence or a gross opinion that lacks actual intent to incite violence. if it were easy to show that it was a deliberate incitement of violence, then it would already be illegal under current laws.
False, see Anarchist's cookbook and similar cases such as MIT's lockpicking guide
> If I rouse a group of people into flipping over cars, breaking windows, and hurling rocks at the police, I'll be charged with incitement
Incitement is a crime. It requires specific, actionable intent. "Screw the police" is not incitement, "go hang group X" is.
> If I yell fire in a crowded theater
Not a crime
> If I con the police into arresting you for something you didn't do
That's making a false statement to police
> If all of that is criminal, then it's not much of a stretch to include escalation to hate crimes as a prosecutable offense
Thank goodness it's not
Three lines from the play were highlighted.
>“The government is telling Muslims to leave India and go away.” In reply, the other child says, “Amma, Modi is saying show documents of your father and grandfather otherwise he is telling us to leave the country.” At this point, another child is heard saying, “Hit them with slippers if anybody asks for documents.”
The last one is directed at survey workers who have been (mis)targeted recently.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thiruvananthapuram/....
>Following instances of workers, engaged to conduct Poshan Abhiyan survey, facing hostile behaviour, the state government had issued an ad explaining that the survey had nothing to do with Census and NPR.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/two-women-mi....
>In Kota, the woman attacked was a surveyor from the National Economic Census department collecting data for the National Economics Census 2019- 2020 in Brijdham area. Nazeeran Bano was let off only after she was able to convince the crowd that she, too, was a Muslim, like them. The police later arrested one person for the attack.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/west-bengal-woman-s-ho....
>The house of a 20-year-old woman was set on fire by a mob in West Bengal's Birbhum district on Wednesday, following rumours that she was collecting data for the proposed nationwide NRC.
>Chumki Khatun and her family are now under police protection after the incident happened in Gourbazar village in Mallarpur police station area, officials said.
I don't support sedition charges, but there should be a penalty for (1) promoting (even petty) violence against government workers and (2) getting your children to express this promotion.
The whole point of free speech laws is to protect controversial opinions.
Good or bad, because the bad of censorship is often much worse than the bad of free speech.