News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation. Parent comment

Re:DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation by buttersbrian on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @02:51PM (#24570525)
That's not exactly true. "Speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely."

Someone randomly spouting off that people of a race or ideology should be wiped out doesn't always/exactly pass this legal test.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation by refurb on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @03:08PM (#24570707)
Great point. Visit any US neo-Nazi website and you’ll see language that one could argue is “threatening to a specific group”. But unless it’s “hey, everyone gather at 5 pm on Main St so we can start shooting people”, it’s still protected language.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation by ByteJockey on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @11:16PM (#24574906)
That's actually a point that I don't think has been decided yet, specifically "imminent". It's been ruled that "at some unspecified point in the future" doesn't count, but I can't find a case (with an admittedly short search) about where the exact boundaries are.

I don't know what the exact legal definition of imminent is, but the layman's definition involves the thing happening soon.

It may well depend on how close to 5 it is (but what timezone?).

The same sentence with the words "right now" would almost certainly meet the test though (assuming the action was actually likely to occur).

[ Parent | on HN ]