Threats are the gray area. I don't view words as violent action, people can say whatever they want. A person acting on it is a different story, including preparations like a person collecting materials for a bomb or something like that.

I could care less if someone wants to say they're going to hurt me. My beef is when they actually try to do it.

Some people may not be as privileged to be immune to being terrorized by violent threats as you are.

If the act is only words then it doesn't require privilege, I'm honestly curious how you would connect the two.

Words aren't terrorism or violent. That doesn't mean people can't interpret them that way and feel harm, but a word alone can't harm anyone.

>If the act is only words then it doesn't require privilege, I'm honestly curious how you would connect the two.

Because words carry weight based on who says them. Which is based on power/privileged. The president making an announcement about MedBeds would cause a much bigger conversation than a crackpot conspiracy group on Facebook. And that's sadly not belittling the FB group (give who I've seen fall for it), that's demonstrating how much more authority the president's words have.

>but a word alone can't harm anyone.

In the same way a pebble can't harm you, but it can be holding back a rockslide that can cause mass damage.

> In the same way a pebble can't harm you, but it can be holding back a rockslide that can cause mass damage.

That analogy doesn't hold. For one thing a pebble can in fact hurt you by itself. For another, the words still wouldn't be what harmed you, the actions people took later are what harmed you and those are what would be illegal.

The fear and anxiety caused by threats issued by those with the capability and proclivity for violence against those with no defense against it is the injury.

> I don't view words as violent action, people can say whatever they want.

Where does that put someone calling out a public hit? It is just words after all.

> I could care less if someone wants to say they're going to hurt me. My beef is when they actually try to do it.

They say there’s no atheists in foxholes.

When you say "calling out a public hit" what do you mean exactly?

Vaguely saying "someone should" is very different from offering a bounty or plotting to do it yourself.

Run the full range. From, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” all the way to “10K to whoever takes out heimdall”.

The former isn't a legal issue, in my opinion. The latter would be as its actively offering a reward or bounty for a hit.

So words aren't violent action in anyway, because you haven't acted on anything. But offering money is violent enough to be legal even though you haven't paid anyone?

Speech isn't violence because its nothing more than words and our speech is a protected right. Offering money to murder someone is almost certainly illegal because they are doing more than talking, they are choosing to collude in the act of murder and a jury is much more likely to agree there.

My point wasn't that money had to change hands or be offered, I was responding to an earlier comment. A person directly taking part in plotting to commit murder I'd also likely breaking the law and likely to lose a jury trial if they are actively plotting a murder whether money I'd involved or not. Saying "someone should" simply isn't a plot.

But I wasn't saying "someone should", I was talking about a person with a following saying "go kill this person." I said "direct people to kill someone."

Your distinction that money has to be offered seems completely arbitrary. It implies people only do things for money and are otherwise impervious to influence. You really underestimate the level of stan culture America has.

When you believe that is okay and libel is also okay, by your standards, I can tell the world my neighbor is a pedophile who assaulted me as a child, and ask people to decapitate his whole family. And as long as I don't offer money, that's fine.

And yet the former led directly to Thomas à Becket's death and is the classic example of giving direction through indirection. It was much more consequential than an unknown stranger on the internet offering a bounty.

But, strictly speaking, neither of those are threats. In English law, they'd be more likely to be prosecuted as Soliciting to Murder or Conspiracy to Murder - I imagine there are similar offences in America.

Calls to violent or hateful ideology (brown people are all bad because of their skin color, judge a class of people based solely on their born traits) leads to nasty outcomes. We learned that many times through history, notably in the mid 20th century.

The real question there is who is to blame, the person who days something hateful or the one who acts on it?

Don't forget that we also learned in the 20th century that millions can support and die for genocide while only a few dozen will be charged while the rest returned home. We also learned that the winner of said conflict can wipe out entire cities and go home the victor without consequence.

> The real question there is who is to blame, the person who days something hateful or the one who acts on it?

Both? It’s not hard to share the blame.

Believing that people's behavior is not based off born traits also will lead to nasty outcomes.

What is your argument here? That hate, violence etc is genetic?