zlacker

This is an convictable crime in the US. Inciting violence is emphatically not protected speech.

>>MangoT+(OP)
This is definitely not a crime in the US per the US Supreme Court. Several additional conditions not in evidence are required for speech of this type to fall outside of First Amendment protections.

>>jandre+kg
The Something Awful Forums got investigated by the FBI after one or two people posted threats about the current president.

So, uh, yes. It's definitely something that the federal authorities take a dim view on.

>>jandre+kg
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373

> Several additional conditions not in evidence are required for speech of this type to fall outside of First Amendment protections.

Perhaps your point would be clearer if you indicated what specific conditions you believe are missing. Maybe the tweeter had no followers? Idk, I can only vaguely guess at what you're referring to.

>>MangoT+(OP)
It didn't happen in the US though, so that's neither here nor there. America's political system is not some benchmark that the rest of the world needs to judge themselves against.

>>fao_+xt
You're mixing up "take a dim view" on and investigation, with charging and conviction.

>>brigan+Cu2
Inciting violence is certainly an arrestable offence, and likely convictable. What hill are you trying to die on?

>>MangoT+xq5
The hill where take a dim view on and investigation are distinct from charging and conviction, because they are.

You would also have to contend with the problem where you've decided that it is incitement, as if conviction is a formality, even though:

- investigation

- charging

- court process

all come before conviction, which is convenient but not particularly bright or persuasive when they're mentioned in the comment you replied to.