This essay appears in the LA Times, from someone (a lawyer, presumably?) at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. For her, the issue seems to turn on the intent of the film's creator.
I agree with the author of this article that “only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking” should be limited,” but her assumption that “likelihood is the easiest test” seems ludicrous. How can one prove that someone knew that something was likely to happen in the future? And if an actual event occurs, how can one be so sure that such an effect can be traced back to one particular cause? I don’t think it can. I imagine lawyers would have a field day making cases to judges and juries across the country that their clients’ words did not cause this riot or begin that chain of events. It seems that intent would be similarly difficult to prove. In my opinion, imminence is much easier to prove.
In the case of Nakoula’s video, we can see how publishing the video shortly before September 11 might play a role in imminent violence. However, we are still unable to say that Nakoula (and anyone else involved in making the video) had the intent of inciting violence or that they were aware that the video had a high likelihood of causing extremist reactions.
I agree with the author of this article that “only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking” should be limited,” but her assumption that “likelihood is the easiest test” seems ludicrous. How can one prove that someone knew that something was likely to happen in the future? And if an actual event occurs, how can one be so sure that such an effect can be traced back to one particular cause? I don’t think it can. I imagine lawyers would have a field day making cases to judges and juries across the country that their clients’ words did not cause this riot or begin that chain of events. It seems that intent would be similarly difficult to prove. In my opinion, imminence is much easier to prove.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Nakoula’s video, we can see how publishing the video shortly before September 11 might play a role in imminent violence. However, we are still unable to say that Nakoula (and anyone else involved in making the video) had the intent of inciting violence or that they were aware that the video had a high likelihood of causing extremist reactions.