An online video is almost by definition incapable of being incitement to imminent lawless action. The threshold for this magic phrase is roughly along the lines of leading a mob and saying "there is <member of outgroup>, lynch them." Pretty much anything short of that is constitutionally-protected free speech under the First Amendment, and it's virtually impossible for an internet video to be sufficiently imminent for the purposes of incitement to imminent lawless action.

That is almost literally the opposite of what Brandenburg v Ohio held! (Many people tend to do this: they assume that the phraseology is meant to limit speech along the lines of Schenck v US or Whitney v California, what is now known as the "clear and present danger" standard, which is what Brandenburg v Ohio was explicitly overturning.)

Brandenburg v Ohio held that advocating violent overthrow of the government is free speech, but you need the very direct link between the speech and the illegal actions for the speech to become illegal. The emphasis in "incitement to imminent lawless action" of Brandenburg is meant to be "imminent", and later court cases have generally held that "imminent" is meant to be read in very short timespans.

Empirically speaking, we saw more than a few of these people on January 6th.

If I were to guess at the political motivation for allowing one group to be criticized in any imaginable way, while there were attendants that did not participate, while the summer of love can only be described without mentioning the participants involved in general mayhem: I'd suggest it's because the point is to create division among the masses and thwart any attempt at changing the status quo. The source of both is the violation of the social contract by those in a position to do so and the victims are roughly every participant in both events, whether they committed a crime or not, and nearly every other US citizen.

The "authorities" only interest is to redirect blame and avoid responsibility or disenfranchisement from control of society. Thinking they have any particular interest in one group or another, except for themselves , is delusional.

That's the real issue I see with more censorship, more control, more surveillance, more integrated intelligence services, more focus on "culture". All the things that matter to them will be protected by whatever means necessary while any material concern, or hope, for the rest is just a wheel to turn to keep the ship on course. Nothing personal at the top, I'm sure, just business as usual. Sorry, not sorry.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-democrats-could-...

Have a good one either way! Certainly, no reason to quarrel when, orientation ignored, we're overwhelmingly in similar circumstances.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Berman

In any case, there's enough "both sides!!1"-style equivocating on the net, and I'm not really interested in engaging with that sort of low-effort distraction on HN. Have a good one!

Apologies for not documenting the link, and I don't mind if you check it or not. I think it's unfair to say "the game is fixed" is conspiratorial, that is a fair criticism of the system we have when the DNC, and I'm sure the Republicans would be willing, to propose that, as Newsweek reported:

> The most recent court hearing on the case was held on April 25, during which the DNC reportedly argued that the organization's neutrality among Democratic campaigns during the primaries was merely a "political promise," and therefore it had no legal obligations to remain impartial throughout the process.[0]

and Salon:

> The DNC is advancing the argument that any claims to be neutral and fair to all candidates were nothing but “political promises” and are unenforceable by law. They claim that there was no expectation that they would actually be evenhanded in their treatment of Sanders and Clinton. They have made this case despite the fact that many in DNC leadership made claims of fairness when Sanders supporters clamored for accountability during and after the primary.[1]

---

> Based on the 1 cryptic sentence you provided before linking out, I'm guessing the link is similarly unrelated.

Well its an article about how the Democrats may form their own certification interruption if Trump wins and my assumption, which is not a judgement, is that given what I know, you would be more supportive of that than the event you mentioned. I think they're both childish but that doesn't mean you can't appreciate the possibility.

The relation between my comments and the article is that the summer of love, Jan. 6th, and the pandemic brought about previously unseen levels of censorship and propaganda on the internet. The powers that brought these about are apparently above the letter of the law because section 230 protections depend on acting as a common carrier, while the level of interference and integration of former natsec officers into media companies suggests the government is acting unconstitutionally through private companies.

> which is republican government efforts to compel speech in order to make sure the next insurrection is successful.

You say that as if corporations are people and that people cannot be trusted to be the judge of information and decide their own politics, which is a possible political position but not a statement of fact. Certainly corporations can editorialize and manage their content but can they do that and _still_ be protected by Section 230 or are they only protected otherwise?

Now this was a somewhat higher-effort distraction and I hope you have a good one too.

0: https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-rigged-hillary-clint...

1: https://www.salon.com/2017/05/13/the-dncs-elephant-in-the-ro...

> You say that as if corporations are people

The discussion here is whether republican government officials can compel me to speak because I own or operate a company (corporation or not), or because I volunteer to moderate a subreddit, or because I am an operator of an IRC channel, or otherwise operate some sort of online service on which people can post to each other. Which is what they're trying to do now.

Honestly, I challenge you to stay on topic without mentioning the Democratic party. They aren't the ones who passed this law. Republicans are. False equivalencies like this:

> Democrats may form their own certification interruption

...aren't relevant, especially when we're discussing the violent, deadly insurrection perpetrated by republicans, not a "certification interruption", which seems to be a term coined just now.

Here again, you say:

> The discussion here is whether republican government officials can compel me to speak because I own or operate a company (corporation or not), or because I volunteer to moderate a subreddit, or because I am an operator of an IRC channel, or otherwise operate some sort of online service on which people can post to each other.

But the 5th circuit points out, correctly in my opinion, that circumstantially conveying the message of a user in an open platform with privileges regarding liability is not compelled speech:

> The Fifth Circuit noted in its decision that the First Amendment protects the “‘right to refrain from speaking,’” and publishers cannot be compelled to publish specific articles or viewpoints. Yet the Fifth Circuit did not recognize “editorial discretion”—the right of private organizations to control the dissemination of third-party content—as an independent right. Instead, the Fifth Circuit explained that such discretion arises only where a law compels or restricts the speech of the private party itself—whereas the Texas law concerns not platforms’ own speech, but how platforms treat users' speech.

These platforms benefit from section 230, they can abandon that, accept responsibility as publishers, and do whatever they want outside some other asinine law controlling free expression.

...

I'm struck by how your stance seems to perfectly reflect a belief in guilt by association or representation since you're suggesting that it is as if the message was your own were you to moderate the forum, etc. and disagreeable content was outside your power to prevent.

I think it's a shame that there are so many angry and easily influenced people out there but the root causes aren't the mean words on the internets from other actual humans, as sad as that may also be.

Please especially avoid tit-for-tat spats like this one. They're not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I know I didn't flag them, but I dont know if they flagged me. I'd be surprised though, given their respectful replying.

Please especially avoid tit-for-tat spats like this one. They're not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html