Yesterday’s hearing of the House Oversight Committee featured three former Twitter executives who are at the center of the growing censorship scandal involving the company: Twitter’s former chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde, former deputy general counsel James Baker and former head of trust and safety Yoel Roth. However, it was the testimony of the only witness called by the Democrats that proved the most enlightening and chilling. Former Twitter executive Anika Collier Navaroli testified on what she repeatedly called the “nuanced” standard used by her and her staff on censorship. Toward the end of the hearing, she was asked about that standard by Rep. Melanie Ann Stansbury (D., NM). Her answer captured precisely why Twitter’s censorship system proved a nightmare for free expression. Stansbury’s agreement with her take on censorship only magnified the concerns over the protection of free speech on social media.
Even before Stansbury’s question, the hearing had troubling moments. Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md) opened up the hearing insisting that Twitter has not censored enough material and suggesting that it was still fueling violence by allowing disinformation to be posted on the platform.
Navaroli then testified how she felt that there should have been much more censorship and how she fought with the company to remove more material that she and her staff considered “dog whistles” and “coded” messaging.
Rep. Stansbury asked what Twitter has done and is doing to combat hate speech on its platform. Navaroli correctly declined to address current policies since she has not been at the company for some time. However, she then said that they balanced free speech against safety and explained that they sought a different approach:
“Instead of asking just free speech versus safety to say free speech for whom and public safety for whom. So whose free expression are we protecting at the expense of whose safety and whose safety are we willing to allow to go the winds so that people can speak freely.”
Rep. Stansbury responded by saying “Exactly.”
The statement was reminiscent to the statement of the former CEO Parag Agrawal. After taking over as CEO, Agrawal pledged to regulate content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.” Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”
Navaroli was saying that it is not enough to simply balance free speech against public safety (a standard that most free speech advocates would oppose as ill-defined and fluid). Instead, Navaroli and her staff would decide “free speech for whom and public safety for whom.”
The suggestion is that free speech protections would differ with the speakers or who was deemed at risk from the exercise of free speech. It takes a subjective balancing test and makes it even more ambiguous and illusory. Free speech demands bright lines to avoid the chilling effect of uncertainty for citizens. The Twitter standard described by Navaroli defies definition, let alone understanding, for anyone posting controversial or dissenting views.
In the hearing, the Democratic members and witnesses repeatedly returned to the statement of Holmes on “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” The hearing shows how this statement has been grossly misused as a justification for censorship. From statements on the pandemic to climate change, anti-free speech advocates are claiming that opponents are screaming “fire” and causing panic.
The line comes from Schenck v. United States, a case that discarded the free speech rights of citizens opposing the draft. Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were leading socialists in Philadelphia who opposed the draft in World War I. Fliers were distributed that encouraged men to “assert your rights” and stand up for their right to refuse such conscription as a form of involuntary servitude. Writing for the Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes dismissed the free speech interests in protecting the war and the draft.
He then wrote the most regrettable and misunderstood judicial soundbites in history: “the character of every act depends on the circumstances in which it is done . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” quickly became a mantra for every effort to curtail free speech.
Holmes sought to narrow his clear and present danger test in his dissent in Abrams v. United States. He warned that “we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loath and believe to be frought (sic) with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that at an immediate check is required to save the country.”
Holmes’ reframing of his view would foreshadow the standard in Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court ruled that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
However, Navaroli, Stansbury, and others are still channeling the standard from Schenck, which is a curious choice for most Democrats in using a standard used against socialists and anti-war protesters.
Yet, Navaroli’s standard from Twitter makes the Schenck standard look like the model of clarity. Essentially, she adds that you also have to consider the theater, movie, and audience to decide what speech to allow. What could be treated as crying “Fire!” by any given person or in any given circumstances would change according to their “nuanced” judgment.
According to Navaroli, she and her staff would not allow the “safety [of others] to go the winds so that people can speak freely.” It is the classic defense of censorship in history and the touchstone of every authoritarian regime today. Today’s hearing will address the question of when corporate censorship programs become an extension of the government. However, while it is unclear how Twitter’s censorship made us more safe, Twitter’s “nuanced” standard certainly allowed free speech to “go to the winds” of censorship.
You can find the Stansbury-Navaroli exchange around the 5:00 mark below:
Curious.
Anyone know the last time someone was charged…
…or convicted…
…of yelling ‘Fire!’…in a crowded movie theater?
In a sane world…one might call that ‘argumentum ad absurdum’.
Navaroli’s censorship standards is about as nuanced as a meat cleaver. Posts and reporting injurious to the Democrat Party were chopped, while any supporting the Democrat Party, or disparaging Republicans, were scraped into the social media pot for consumers to enjoy.
Whoops. Should be “standards are”.
@Karen
Those media sites, nay, virtually every millennial run site is in the same circle as the MSM, since millennials began to take charge they are all essentially a hegemony. This is not new in the online space, but to bleed into the rest of daily life to the extent that it has is, that is new and it couldn’t happen without organization and funding. Bear witness to the trolls on the most innocuous of posts here.
You don’t have to agree with me, but IMO we are dealing with a bonafide regime at this point, and they are sucking privileged young people up like a vacuum, and spitting out future totalitarians who don’t realize no ideology will stop THEM from deteriorating into Lord of The Flies when they alone remain if they don’t snap out of it. We have very few to pass torches to these days.
The hypothetical situation of shouting, “Fire”, in a crowded theater was not deemed protected speech not because of the panic, but because a panicked, crowded mob tramples each other to death. That’s what happened in the fire at The Station nightclub. Pyrotechnics malfunctions, set the place on fire, and people could not see the exit signs for the smoke. They stampeded back towards the front entrance, trampling and killing those who went down, who were disproportionately women.
By all means debate the merits of Holmes’ statement, but activists are wrong to defend censorship by this standard. No mob is trampling anyone to death based on the censored statements. Activists have a vague fear that, for example, opposing men who identify as women from changing in the women’s locker room, exposing their genital to women and girls, would somehow lead to physical assaults on transgender people. That’s not a present or realistic fear of immediate danger. A valid comparison would entail someone yelling, “That transgender has a bomb in his pocket and will blow up the plane! Get him! Beat him up before he kills us all!” That would be setting a mob directly to harm or kill someone based on knowingly false speech.
This is also why Ilhan Omar’s antisemitic remarks, though disturbing, did not meet that standard. Jewish people are of course worried about the rise of antisemitism, which has become rather normalized among the Left, as well as the usual suspects of Neo Na$is, skinheads, and the fading Klan. However, Omar was not extending her antisemitic finger at a group of Orthodox Jews in a crowded theater, falsely screaming to get them because they are hiding AK47s under their coats.
Driving a car is a right and freedom. Causing bodily injury and property damage are crimes.
Shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is freedom of speech. Causing bodily injury and property damage are crimes.
Audience members in a crowded theater or other venue must adhere to the admonitions: Caveat emptor and “be prepared.”
The Constitution makes people free; it does not coddle them or hold their hands.
The govt , all its apparatchiks and it’s alphabet agencies have been having a delightful feast using social media and media in general to do their dirty work censoring only certain POV’s …with malice. Funny how the left in America works …works so hard for their bias to the point of actual suppression. George Orwell predicted this state of affairs to a “T”. This collusion must be stopped and the govt employees by name and title must be fired and prosecuted or this will be an exercise in futility. Heads must be rolled , agencies thinned , some even shuttered or they will fear nothing as usual and grow like a bigger cancer until it kills the host.
“So, unless Navaroli is risking criminal penalties and perjuring herself over a random 2019 celebrity tweet — what incentive there is for her to do so is entirely unclear — it sure seems Trump’s White House did try to crack down on mean things said about him on Twitter.
And it seemingly wasn’t a one-time thing. Rolling Stone says multiple former Trump and Twitter officials told the outlet, “[The] Teigen tweet demand was hardly an isolated incident: The Trump administration and its allied Republicans in Congress routinely asked Twitter to take down posts they objected to — the exact behavior that they’re claiming makes President Biden, the Democrats, and Twitter complicit in an anti-free speech conspiracy to muzzle conservatives online.”
With these revelations in mind, it’s worth revisiting what Republicans have had to say about similar instances where the government lobbied Twitter to suppress speech it dislikes.
For example, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said the Biden White House’s requests made it “the most dangerously anti-free speech administration in American history.”
It seems conservatives have a bit of selective amnesia. Will they be investigating Trump’s White House demands too? Inquiring minds want to know. Why wasn’t Turley writing columns against such attacks on free speech?
Svelaz, the difference is that social media did not cater to Republicans requesting posts be removed based on content. They did so for Democrats, however.
It’s like if cops allow Democrats to speed as fast as they want on freeways. A Republican determines there are no speed limits anymore, but is promptly pulled over, and arrested for reckless driving.
One way for thee, another for me.
There are no equal rights in a land of special privileges.
How come Turley never criticized Trump for this?
“Former Twitter U.S. Safety Policy Team senior expert Anika Collier Navaroli testified before the committee and was asked about an infamous, profane anti-Trump tweet by the actor Chrissy Teigen. In September 2019, Teigen tweeted that Trump was a “p**** a** b****.”
While certainly vulgar and not very classy, it’s nonetheless well within the bounds of the First Amendment’s protections for a citizen to cuss out their president. But Navaroli testified under oath that she recalled the Trump-era White House reaching out to Twitter and pushing for the tweet to be taken down.”
It seems trump actually demanded twitter take down the tweet. Oops. Trump loves censorship after all.
Will this committee investigate the trump administration’s attempt at censoring too?
This can be distilled to free speech only for those we agree with.
It’s the same old sh!t over and over. We know what they are doing and they know we know, but they don’t care …..
because they know, NOTHING BAD WILL HAPPEN TO THEM … as usual.
The erosion of free speech rights in America has been proceeding incrementally now for several decades. Indoctrination into liberal-left ideology at all levels of the educational system has created a broad swath of younger Americans who are woefully ignorant of and completely hostile to the classical liberal philosophy upon which America was founded. Combined with journalism’s descent into spreading naked left-wing propaganda and peddling the neo-Marxist nonsense known as critical race theory, and you have an especially vile brew of noxious disinformation masquerading as the sole Truth. Labelling anyone who dissents from these revisionist lies as “deplorable” completes the cycle, and America is sadly lost. Bill Ayers and his ilk must just marvel at how easy it has been destroy America via the backdoor.
New leftwing word “Disinformation”. Instead of PROPAGANDA. Stop using their newspeak. Did you know that in 2012, the Congress made it Legal for the US Government to use Propaganda on US Citizens (NDAA Amended), negating the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 which explicitly forbade the USG from psyops aimed at influencing US public opinion?
Censorship is akin to “demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can’t eat steak.”
-Robert A. Heinlein
Congress has no power to “claim or exercise” dominion over private property.
The FBI and DOJ have acted high-criminally, as direct and mortal enemies, against the Constitution, Americans and America.
Twitter has engaged in a conspiracy, with the FBI and DOJ and as direct and mortal enemies, against the Constitution, Americans and America.
Members of Congress or the Senate who oppose impeachment and conviction of any and all related parties are proven de facto to be co-conspirators and direct and mortal enemies of the Constitution, Americans and America.
George: Both Republicans and Democrats seem to agree that this sort of behavior will never lead to any negative consequences. Sort of like term limits. Is that a good idea? Why, yes. Yes it is. Will our elected officials ever vote it into law? Why, no. No they won’t. The same applies to consequences for actions which could be deemed to be deleterious to citizen’s rights and possibly illegal. Appropriate consequences? Uh, no, I don’t think so.
“We don’t know where the FBI ends and Twitter begins.”
– Congressman Lauren Boebert
_________________________
Twitter is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the DOJ and FBI.
Why haven’t the heads of the SS and the Gestapo, Oberst Gruppen Führer Garland and Gruppen Führer Wray, been impeached, convicted and drawn and quartered for abuse of power, usurpation of power, subversion, insurrection, treason et al.?
What, exactly, will it take to obtain law enforcement in America?
The people have not only “smoking guns,” but “smoking ICBMs.”
Sorry, but it has been shown rather clearly that US law only applies to those who are not bureaucratic favorites. Treasonous and seditious members of the favored FBI, DOJ, CIA and congress are not held to that standard of the law. In fact, unless proven otherwise, they have been, and will remain, above the law.
Then there’s that.
If this committee doesn’t get to the truth about what’s been happening in the U.S., since 9/11 (and even before), I hate to think about where it will end.
The stakes are too high. -Tulsi Gabbard
TULSI MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT AMERICA’S HEALTH
Tulsi in Hindi or Tulasi in Sanskrit (holy basil in English) is a highly revered culinary and medicinal aromatic herb from the family Lamiaceae that is indigenous to the Indian subcontinent and been used within Ayurvedic medicine more than 3000 years.
Tulsi’s broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, which includes activity against a range of human and animal pathogens, suggests it can be used as a hand sanitizer, mouthwash and water purifier as well as in animal rearing, wound healing, the preservation of food stuffs and herbal raw materials and traveler’s health.
But people who are already taking medicines for blood thinning, if they take Tulsi, it may adversely affect their health. It should not be consumed by people who are on anti-clotting medications.
__________
I’m just sayin’!
Tulsi Gabbard is speaking now:
The vitriol from the Democrats is palpable
Weaponization Committee Includes Marjorie Taylor Greene, Of All People
From January of 2022:
Marjorie Taylor Greene was temporarily suspended from Twitter in January 2021 for violating the company’s “civic integrity” policy, which the company had used to remove thousands of QAnon-related accounts. Greene has endorsed the QAnon conspiracy theory in the past.
In May she faced criticism from her own party and beyond after comparing COVID-19 safety measures to the treatment of Jews during the Holocaust.
The House of Representatives removed Greene from her committee assignments in February. She’d been condemned for promoting racist, antisemitic and false conspiracy theories and for encouraging violence against Democratic officials before she took office.
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/02/1069753102/twitter-bans-marjorie-taylor-greenes-personal-account-over-covid-misinformation
…………………………….
Professor Turley presumes we should blow a gasket because this fine, Confederate Congresswoman was banned by Twitter. And ‘yes’, this is the same Marjorie Taylor Greene who showed up in a rabbit fur to heckle President Biden Tuesday night.
Incredibly Greene sits on the Weaponization Committee just to make sure no one takes it seriously. This gives Greene the chance to confront the ‘bad guys’ directly in Made-For-Fox moments.
it’s all theatre every last bit..
excellent comment
@Turley
Its the 5th hour at 5:11:58 or so. Not 5 minutes in…
-G
Now Playing In Your Rightwing Bubble
Another poll last week, from Fox News, appeared to show more support for the committee’s founding purpose. It found 43 percent said it was “very important” for Congress to investigate whether agencies such as the FBI and IRS are biased against conservatives. And 7 in 10 said it was at least somewhat important.
When it comes to the many other issues Republicans have signaled the committee might focus on, though, it’s not so clear the American people even agree there’s something amiss.
The Russia investigation? A 2019 Fox News poll found Americans said 49-39 that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe was legitimate, rather than a “bogus attempt” to undermine Trump. (Other polls showed a similar split, and special counsel John Durham’s investigation in this vein didn’t turn up much.)
The allegedly overzealous targeting and harsh treatment of Jan. 6 defendants? There’s little evidence Americans agree that has taken place, and a late 2021 poll showed just 25 percent opposed continuing to identify and arrest them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/06/polls-weaponization-committee/
……………………………………………..
Even Fox News polls show that the narratives pushed by these investigations are primarily supported by only Trumpers.
Anonymous, as usual you leave out that Greene was censored because if misinformation about Covid. There were also well known doctors who were censored for Covid misinformation. Now they have been proven to be correct. Time to move up to reality.
Estovir:
No, I didn’t leave it out:
In May she (Greene) faced criticism from her own party and beyond after comparing COVID-19 safety measures to the treatment of Jews during the Holocaust.
You skipped the most relevant part of what is going on. What the government cannot do under the constitution directly, it cannot do indirectly, such as delegate to private companies. If the government delegates some of its activities to a private company, that company becomes a state actor in respect to that activity and is bound by all constitutional restrictions on government.
So the social media sites violated the constitutional rights of 330 million Americans at the governments asking. Our federal government has laws that punish those who were involved in the illegal and unconstitutional acts of censoring America.
*18 USC 241 Conspiracy against rights
* 18 USC 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law
And for the personal liability of each one of those executives there is
*42 USC 1983 civil action for deprivation of rights
The government officials knew what they were doing was unconstitutional and illegal. Most likely the media companies knew also but willfully censored the free-speech of Americans.
Please use the word ‘normal sane people’ in place of ‘Trumpers’ … Normal people support Mr. Trump. Lunatics and pervs support the Democrats. But you must already know that.
It is not 2019 anymore.
We now KNOW things that the FBI knew and did not tell us, that Mueller knew and did not tell us.
We KNOW there was no russian collusion.
We KNOW there were not Russian Bots – these were all actual Republicans that the government sought to censor.
Even Twitter knew it.
We KNOW the Alpha Bank nonsense was based on manipulated data – a Hoax.
We KNOW the Steele Dossier was a HOAX created mostly from DNC Gossip.
We KNOW the DOJ/FBI lied in the applications for the FISA Warrants.
We KNOW that by Jan 5. 2017 the FBI KNEW the whole investigaion was DEAD.
Yet all of that was Hidden from us.
If as you claim only Trump supporters beleived the Mueller investigation was a “Witch Hunt”.
Then Trump supporters are far more intelligent that everyone else – Because THEY got it right – and YOU did not.
I have YET to hear an appolgy or correction fo the MANY things you have gotten wrong.
I did not vote for Trump, not in 2016 and not in 2020.
But I KNEW the collusion delusion was a Fraud from the start.
Know one in their right mind beleives that Putin wanted Trump as president over Hillary.
That is not the ONLY obviously stupid thing about the collusion delusion from the get go.
Know one in their right mind would beleive that Trump would bet his freedom that he could with no skill in spycraft, collude with Russian and not leave even a trace of evidence – that the media in the most massive meadia investigation in US history, that the FBI, that the Speecial Counsel could find in order to get Putin to place unbeleivably idiotic Internet Adds that were evenly divided between Trump Sanders and Clinton, and no one saw.
When he could drop a small a pile of money and get well produced adds to target whatever he wanted.
Anyone who EVER beleived the Collusion Delusion – should never be trusted about anything.
It was OBVIOUS garbage from day one.
Anyone who EVER beleived the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation – should never be trusted about anything.
It was OBVIOUS garbage from day one.
Just my opinion, but unless you are utterly unfamiliar with the history of the 20th century and beyond, there is quite literally no way this cannot be viewed as government fascism by proxy, and yes, this what happened in Germany in the 1930s. To whit:
‘Congress shall make NO (emphasis mine) law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; *or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances*.’
That is it, people. What these psychos at Twitter did was demonstrably wrong, and likely illegal, since the feds were very directly involved. I would not expect Silicon Valley millennials or gen z to understand that, given the way that they were raised and educated (psst – that would be with extreme insularity and privilege – people from poor countries do not cr*p on their own people or the country that gave them the freedom to be vociferous in the first place, at the freaking Olympics or World Cup, just for example, as we saw a few years ago. Not even the young ones among those cultures would dare dream of it. Kids in this country that behave so suffer from privilege).
This is a charade, they know it’s a charade, and it is despicable when everyone is simply trying to live their lives. That the people responsible for the J6 ‘hearings’ would tae this tack is right in line with their tactics of the past decade, and it is disgusting. They lie to your face every time they open their mouths, and it is all in the name of money and power. That someone like AOC thinks she is resisting that (if indeed she actually does) makes all other comedy irrelevant. I have decided that the American left has not ‘become’ anything; they have simply, in their privilege and hubris, *reverted* to the aristocratic mindset that led them to believe they and their bloodlines alone controlled the universe decades and even centuries ago. This is absurd, and to them, the law is a trifle.
Twitter is not congress.
James, you and all your aliases use ‘fascist’ way too much. The mind-numbing repetition of these references gives each comment that, “Haven’t I seen this before?”, effect.
It was a timely call in 1964 and a no less timely one in 2023.
https://fee.org/articles/the-times-call-for-courage/
What was openly on display in this hearing voiced by this woman is a classic case of narcissism. She openly states that she should be the one who decides what you can hear. Narcissism is a mental illness and she displayed all the common symptoms of the malady in her statement. To put it more simply, when did God die and leave her in charge. She along with the other little gods at this hearing even in the light of exposure continue to call for more censorship and they are proud of it. Some of you voted the little gods into power. Now that you know who they are will you make the same mistake twice? Perhaps you enjoy being told what you can do or say. If so, you should just continue to fill in the little circle that has a “D” in front of it. In full disclosure I did the same thing but that was in the past.
“She openly states that she should be the one who decides what you can hear. Narcissism is a mental illness and she displayed all the common symptoms of the malady in her statement. ”
Yeah because she was following the company’s policies. The very same policies people agreed to when they signed up. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Those who sign up AGREE to THEIR terms and conditions and they explicitly say they reserve the right to revoke, suspend or censor content they deem in violation of their policies. People who signed up GAVE her the authority to decide. They agreed to that term.
Trump is a narcissist too. Glad to see you agree he is mentally ill.
“Some of you voted the little gods into power.”
No, all of those who stupidly signed up and agreed without ever reading the terms and conditions GAVE them that power willingly.
Svelaz, on more than one occasion Roth said that the company policies did not prohibit speech but never the less such speech was prohibited by other departments. While you were at the cherry tree you must have missed that little bit of info. Once again you deflect to what about Trump when the discussion concerns censorship that was conducted by the FBI through assistance by Twitter employees. I repeat, Roth said that company policies were not supportive of the banning of The New York Post release of the Hunter Biden laptop. You know, the laptop that you and the FBI wish would just go away. In Roths’ testimony he made sure to let us know that the decision to censor the story was not his. In other words, he distanced himself to protect his reputation. Maybe you should follow his lead.
Tit, nothing obligated Twitter to publish the laptop story. Just because their policy does not prohibit it. It doesn’t mean they are obligated to post the story.
“Once again you deflect to what about Trump when the discussion concerns censorship that was conducted by the FBI through assistance by Twitter employees. ”
You brought up narcissism. Since trump is a malignant narcissist it was only appropriate to include him in the discussion.
See you Couldnt go very long before you threw Trump in the mix. The hearing wasn’t aboutTrump was it? Trump scares the hell out all the corrupt period.
In fact, Trump’s name came up multiple times in the hearing.
Do you consider all moderators to be narcissists because they are “the ones who decide what you can hear”?
We all have the right to associate, or not, with whom we please. We can, therefore, hang up on someone who insults us, delete comments on our personal social media page, or block people.
Facebook’s actions would be like the phone company employing operators to monitor all phone calls, in coordination with various government agencies, and disconnect the call, or the entire service, if they dislike what callers say. Facebook behaved as if it were their telephone call, rather than their infrastructure used to place the call.
Social media received protection from lawsuits by claiming to be like the public square or telephone company, media for mass communication, yet it behaved like Pravda had control of all mass digital communications.
yes
Hope that our Congress will write laws and regulations that treat Facebook, Google;, Twitter etc as such
From the statement in the article:
“Holmes’ reframing of his view would foreshadow the standard in Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court ruled that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Who decides the threat of imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
It seems highly subjective and different people can have “good faith” arguments to argue for an against such a threat. To me it seems that it is only after the lawless action is committed that it can be proved that the call for violence actually created the violence.
Even then it is hard to prove in a court of law – for e.g., the Jan 6. mob attack on the House, was it instigated, was it organic, was it pre-planned, did any of the speeches at the rally before it fuel it, did all the chatter on twitter and face-book leading to that day cause it?
Regardless of political beliefs, how does one come up with a law or set of rules to figure out the cause of violence created by speech as well as keep speech free under the First Amendment?