Incitement To Violence Prosecutions
Incitement to Violence: Overview
Incitement to violence generally means encouraging, urging, or provoking others to commit acts of violence. It’s often criminalized because it can lead to harm and disrupt public order. Legal standards balance the protection of free speech with the need to prevent violence.
Key elements courts usually look for:
Intent: Did the speaker intend to cause violence?
Imminence: Was the violence urged immediate or imminent?
Likelihood: Was the incitement likely to result in violence?
Context: What was the setting and nature of the speech?
The exact legal tests vary by jurisdiction, but the principle is that speech that directly and intentionally provokes violence can be prosecuted.
Case Law Examples
1. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Court: United States Supreme Court
Facts:
Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, made a speech at a rally that included derogatory remarks about the government and a call to action “if the government continues to suppress the white race.” He was convicted under Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law for inciting violence.
Legal Issues:
Whether the speech was protected under the First Amendment
Whether the law criminalizing incitement was overly broad
Ruling:
The Court reversed the conviction and established the Brandenburg test: speech can only be prohibited if it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.
Significance:
This landmark case protects speech unless it meets both intent and imminence criteria for incitement. Mere advocacy of violence at some indefinite future time is protected.
2. R v. Keegstra (1990)
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Facts:
James Keegstra, a high school teacher, was charged under Canadian hate speech laws for teaching students anti-Semitic views encouraging hatred and hostility toward Jews.
Legal Issues:
Whether his speech constituted incitement to violence or hatred
Balancing freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with public order
Ruling:
The Court upheld his conviction, ruling that hate speech which is likely to expose a group to hatred and possibly violence can be restricted. The ruling distinguished between free speech and speech that crosses into hate and incitement.
Significance:
Shows that hate speech inciting violence or hostility is not protected in Canada, emphasizing harm to targeted groups.
3. R v. Chan-Kiu (2014)
Court: United Kingdom Crown Court
Facts:
Chan-Kiu was convicted of incitement after posting online messages urging followers to attack members of a rival gang.
Legal Issues:
Whether online speech could be considered incitement
The immediacy and likelihood of violence from digital incitement
Ruling:
The court held that online calls for violence could constitute incitement if there was evidence the speech was intended and likely to cause violence. The context (gang rivalry) increased the immediacy and risk.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of incitement to include social media and online platforms, recognizing digital speech’s real-world impact.
4. R v. Stockwell (1985)
Court: Australian High Court
Facts:
Stockwell gave a public speech during a protest, encouraging people to resist police and use violence if necessary.
Legal Issues:
Whether his speech incited immediate violence
The balance between political protest and unlawful incitement
Ruling:
The court found Stockwell guilty because his speech was directed toward causing imminent violence, not just abstract advocacy.
Significance:
Affirmed that political speech advocating immediate violence is criminally punishable, emphasizing the imminence criterion.
5. United States v. Yusuf (1999)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals
Facts:
Yusuf was convicted for giving a speech to a group encouraging violent jihadist actions against government targets.
Legal Issues:
Whether his speech was protected or constituted incitement
The role of intent and likelihood of causing violence
Ruling:
The court upheld the conviction because Yusuf’s speech was intended to incite imminent violent acts and was likely to do so given the audience and context.
Significance:
Reinforces the principle that incitement to imminent violence is criminal even when framed as political or religious speech.
Summary of Legal Principles from These Cases
Intent and Imminence: Incitement requires the speaker to intend violence and that violence be imminent.
Likelihood: There must be a real likelihood the speech will cause violence.
Context Matters: The setting, audience, and nature of speech impact whether it’s incitement.
Protection of Free Speech: Advocacy of ideas, even unpopular or hateful ones, is protected unless it crosses the threshold into direct incitement.
Online Speech: Digital communications can be prosecuted if they incite violence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments