so the shooter was most likely radicalized by all the left wing rhetoric claiming Trump is hitler, Trump is a fascist, Trump is going to gas the trans people, etc etc. we saw politicians like Nancy pelosi calling for uprisings, staffers insisting that people "take one for the team" and shoot the president.
Now that someone has taken action on this violent rhetoric, could Trump sue for damages against Nancy Pelosi and her ilk? would he have a case?
EDIT: by just world, I mean in America where the justices actually enforce the law.
It would be hard if not impossible since he's a public figure so at an extremely high bar for threats let alone deformation.
You see this with the Covington kids as in that the media were trying to insinuate he was a public figure....because they made him one. They lost that argument so had to settle and pay him so you see how much being a public figure hinders that ability to fight this.
Misquotes can go to defamation, and he is obviously a public figure so that hurdle is already moot, but that's different from incitement.
Considering the first amendment does not actually say "except violent rhetoric and threats", no.
The framers never envisioned a country where organized propaganda operations on the public consisting of lies and hateful rhetoric would exist, let alone be successful, so it serves as an example of why we can't have nice things.
We need a better populace.
Since yesterday, I’ve seen people chattering about so-called “stochastic terrorism”, which seems to be a theory under which such statements could (potentially, I don’t think it’s happened yet) be prosecuted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism
Personally I don’t think 1st amendment protections for these kinds of statements should ever be legally reconsidered, but I do see the validity in places like X/KiA2 (i.e. self or community moderation) putting limits on them. When you allow insanity like that to take over it drowns out all the sanity and you’re just left with useless noise
'Stochastic terrorism' is just the left pretending that they're actually women and can read men's minds, despite men telling them that, no, that's not what they meant.
You laugh, but that's what it basically boils down to - ignoring what people are saying and instead reading what they're actually IMplYiNG.
It's interesting to realize just how many leftist argument/debate tactics assume a female frame.
Similar to the ideas behind “hate crimes” sentencing enhancements, but look where ignoring that slow march towards tyranny has gotten us.
Also somewhat similar to how Alex Jones was prosecuted - his guilt was predetermined by the “actions of those he inspired”, and a default judgement against him was rendered before he could even defend his statements. The purpose of the whole charade was to, much like the notions of “hate crimes” or “stochastic terrorism”, cut the knees off freedom of speech and just determine how hard they want to twist the knife in each specific case. Same thing with making Assange finally accept a guilty plea. The first step to the new world order is overturning the precedent of the old
Edit - one further note I thought about the other day and think is relavent here:
This is also probably why the selective publishing of “manifestos” always tends to reek something fierce - the entire point is to build the idea in our minds that a chain of guilt can be established between speakers (like AJ) and unrelated others, for the actions of others (like whatever nutjob or patsy can be rounded up to commit the heinous act) through attribution of “cause” in the manifesto (“I’m doing this because Alex Jones / Trump / etc made me think it was a good idea!”)
There's no such thing as that.The term was invented by media fucktards.
Oh, so exactly what the left has been doing for over 8 years to Trump.
In a just world he not only could sue them but also challenge them to a duel.
of course. I should have specified: in America where the justices actually enforce the law.
Court precedents have set the bar for incitement very high. There has to be evidence of a forseeable possibility that someone might actually act on your words. Even just saying "I wish someone would shoot that guy" is probably protected speech if there's no way you can forsee that somebody will actually act on your statement.
what about slander/defamation? multiple outlets in Democratic politicians have insinuated Trump is something he is not: Genocidal, a KKK member, murderous, etc. it stands to reason that people who listen to this garbage would fear for their lives, and be willing to take rash action to "defend" themselves. is there any chance that the people spouting this rhetoric could be held responsible?
If those people are named Alex Jones, yes