SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An Army veteran, a recent college graduate and a student who once won a poetry contest by condemning prejudice stirred up by the Sept. 11 attacks intervened as a man screamed anti-Muslim insults at two women in Portland, Ore., on Friday.
[...] Two of the men — Taliesin Myrddin Namkai Meche, 23, and Rick Best, 53 — died in the attack, which occurred on a commuter train. The third, Micah David-Cole Fletcher, 21, was treated on Saturday for injuries that the police said were serious but not life-threatening.
Jeremy Christian, 35, of North Portland, Ore., was charged with two counts of aggravated murder in the attack and could face additional charges when he is arraigned on Tuesday. Mr. Christian, who the authorities said had a history of making extremist statements on social media, was ranting at, and talking disparagingly about, the two women, one of whom was wearing a hijab.
Source: The New York Times
President Donald Trump has released his first official statement on the attack in Portland, Oregon, more than 48 hours after the two victims died.
"The violent attacks in Portland on Friday are unacceptable," Mr Trump tweeted. "The victims were standing up to hate and intolerance. Our prayers are w/ them."
Source: The Independent
Portland law enforcement leaders were tightlipped Saturday about the investigation into Friday's attacks that killed two men on a light rail train but a federal official did say it was too early to label the incident a hate crime.
[...] Loren Cannon, special agent in charge of the Portland FBI office, [...]
"It's too early to say whether last night's violence was an act of domestic terrorism or a federal hate crime," he said. "However, in the coming days, the FBI, PPB and the prosecutors will work together to share information, leverage resources and make determinations about future criminal charges."
[...] Leaders of the Muslim community said they were thankful for the men who gave their lives to save the girls from harm. They have raised $50,000 toward a goal of $60,000 to help support the victims and their families.
Source: The Oregonian
(Score: 3, Informative) by NCommander on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:46AM (2 children)
As far as the first amendment is concerned, the legal standard is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Brandenburg v. Ohio [wikipedia.org].
That's generally why you don't see hate speech and such as charges in these types of cases. That being said, harassment and such have a much lower bar and deal with the actions of an individual and not the specific words they say.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday May 30 2017, @07:24PM (1 child)
That is *a* legal standard for *one* of the exceptions to the first amendment. But I don't think it's necessarily the only relevant one to this thread. GP suggested that threats are illegal, and that is true in many circumstances. So-called true threats [wikipedia.org] of illegal activity are not covered by first amendment protection, even if they do not "incite imminent lawless action."
The question in such cases is generally whether the individual making the speech makes a clear and specific threat of some sort, as well as appearing willing to carry out such threats. Without such legal doctrine, we'd rarely be able to convict people for extortion, for example. Similarly, purely verbal harassment CAN constitute a crime, if it involves, say, a credible threat of violence.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Saturday June 10 2017, @04:44AM
We're getting caught up in technicalities here, but I'll try and be more specific.
Specifically, there's the act of saying something, and the words themselves. In the cases of harassment, the definition varies state by state, but if I keep bothering you by singing off-key and following you to your workplace and doing it non-stop after being asked to stop, that's harassment. Specifically, its not the words (or idea) themselves that cause criminal penalties to apply, its using them (regardless of content) to harass an individual.
In other cases, the words themselves can be "illegal" (for want of a better word). Specifically, words that would let a reasonable person believe they would incite imminent lawless action, or constitute a true threat. I actually wasn't aware of Watts v. United States prior to this comment, so thanks for the education case, but I don't think it defeats my point. Hate speech, for better or worse, is not illegal in the United States. Once it becomes violent, or becomes a true threat, then a crime has occurred.
Still always moving