Here's the deal: A celebrity recently tweeted, “I’d pay good money to see someone sock a hippy-dippy pothead right in the mouth. Seriously, I’d venmo them in a heartbeat.”
Here's the context: This celebrity has 10 million followers and a long history of Tweets and other public statements denouncing marijuana use and making fun of people who smoke marijuana. According to the celebrity, the Tweet was allegedly a reference to a joke from a TV show. However, the celebrity did not correct any of the misconceptions that developed in the comments section of the original Tweet or follow up the Tweet with a clarification or an apology.
Within 24 hours, dozens of people sent this celebrity original videos of them assaulting marijuana smokers, and they all promptly asked to be paid.
This Tweet was eventually taken down for violating Twitter's policies.
[[Was Twitter right to remove this Tweet?]]
It could be argued that, by apparently incentivizing serious bodily harm against marijuana smokers, this Tweet violated Twitter's policies regarding violent threats.
According to their website, Twitter explicitly prohibits "asking for or offering a financial reward in exchange for inflicting violence on a specific person or group of people."
However, context matters. Twitter's website also provides exemptions for the hyperbolic use of violence, especially between friends. Jokes are often acceptable too, but only if they can be reasonably construed as such.
If found to be in violation of the violent threats policy, it would result in a permanent suspension from Twitter.
The celebrity allegedly meant to reference a TV show they had just watched, so it may have been intended to be lighthearted. Would a reasonable person perceive it that way, though? The celebrity admitted that their reference was only somewhat similar to the TV show, and public perception depends on how popular and well-known the TV show was. Otherwise, no one would recognize the joke. Their well-documented distaste for marijuana users further weakens their argument that it was just a joke. The permissibility of the Tweet also depends on whether a reasonable person would perceive this as a genuine offer of cash in exchange for punching a marijuana smoker.
Do you think the celebrity violated Twitter's violent threat policies?
[[Also, is this Tweet within the celebrity's first amendment rights?]]The celebrity is now being charged with incitement and is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney General.
If found to be in violation of the prevailing court precedents, this celebrity could go to prison for years.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court declared incitement to be any speech that is intended and likely to provoke imminent unlawful action.
Is the Tweet intended to provoke imminent unlawful action? Is it also likely to do so?
Regarding intent, the celebrity clearly harbors some animus towards marijuana users, as demonstrated by their past behavior. They also offered a cash reward for assaulting marijuana users, and money is a well-known incentive. But how seriously do people take Tweets from a celebrity? And could it have been a joke inspired by a TV show?
So, what do you think? Should this celebrity be found guilty of incitement?
//Note: The fact that some people acted on the Tweet is not sufficient evidence in and of itself. For instance, if I Tweet that I don't like cows, there will not be legal repercussions if someone tips a cow because of what I said. In other words, verbalizing my disdain for cows is neither intended nor likely to provoke imminent unlawful action, even if someone did happen to act on my Tweet.//
<script>
function EmbedTwineUpdateHeight(){
var passage = document.getElementsByTagName("tw-passage")[0];
if (passage === undefined){//SugarCube
passage = document.getElementById("passages");
}
var newHeight = passage.offsetHeight;
if(newHeight<500){newHeight=500;}
window.parent.postMessage(["setHeight", newHeight], "*");
console.log(newHeight);
}
setTimeout(EmbedTwineUpdateHeight, 50);
</script>