you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Optimus85Independent 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The Supreme Court recognizes, rightfully, that political speech often involves really passionate, sometimes violent rhetoric. And unless and until it creates a specific and immediate roadmap to violence against others, it cannot be criminalized consistent with our First Amendment.

https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/freedom-of-speech-what-constitutes-incitement

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is one of the three civil cases brought in front of the courts for incitement of the Jan 6 riots.

So, as you point out, the criminal case against trump has a high bar. It may go ahead nonetheless: Federal prosecutor doesn’t rule out charging Trump for inciting Capitol riot.

This suit claims that the defendants should be held civilly liable for negligence because they committed criminal incitement under DC’s local code, which establishes the standard of care.

Beyond the civil rights and incitement counts, Swalwell also claims that the defendants are liable for encouraging (aiding and abetting) the rioters’ violent conduct and for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on members of Congress in connection with the attack on the Capitol.