A hit-list of specific individuals seems like it falls under that category, doubly so when it's clearly intended to be a "continuation" of the UHC CEO assassination.

The guy also posted "the CEO must die" to his Instagram.

Maybe you should apply HN comment etiquette outside of HN.

>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

The strongest good faith interpretation of "the CEO must die" is that it is not a call to action for murdering "the CEO". But we'll let the author clarify:

>“The CEO is more than an individual it is a figurehead of the capitalist order,” he wrote. “When we say the ceo must die, we mean the structure of capitalism must be broken.”

I interpret the author's clarification as backpedaling by someone who enjoyed making an inflammatory statement but didn't want to stand behind it.

Who is "the CEO"? Is it all 52? So you have decided from the start to take the uncharitable take.

I'm pretty sure that if someone posted that here, in the context of making "most wanted" list... they'd be banned.

Good faith is for arguments, not calls to murder.

You can use the search bar below to see that this is in fact true: this is a quick way to get banned on HN.

the CEO must die.

And now we wait.

A stunt like that is precisely why I was clear about the CONTEXT. Note that I'm not encouraging you to actually do it, far from it, but lets not pretend that you're bravely proving a point here.

You're free to ignore the context of a person saying "the CEO must die" after years railing against capitalism. I'm just going to call you out for it.

It seems like you're very selective in your application of the "most charitable take" principle.

Right back at ya.

It doesn't. Brandenburg and the related case law is clear on this. "Imminent" doesn't mean "someone else plots to assassinate a CEO and does it four months later." It means right now, like standing in the street pointing to the CEO and shouting to an armed crowd "shoot him!"

Generalized calls to violence are perfectly legal and have been a part of American political culture for centuries. Sometimes it's much hotter than others (the 1960s were pretty hot), but so it goes. I personally wouldn't do it, and I don't agree with these statements or these cards, but people have a right to say it.