>

I can't imagine this passing in Texas. But I hope some other states, where it might pass, take the idea and run with it.
The bill itself also says it would impose criminal penalties for those who "published material advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, antagonism based on ‘replacement theory,’ or hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group, and such published material," if that material was "read, heard, or viewed by a person who engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime."

If this happens — which it won’t — it’s going to be a real problem for Tucker. >

Read the bill.  What it does is classify hate crimes as a crime punishable under already existing conspiracy laws, and subject to the same restrictions.  Yes, conspiracy to commit a crime once it meets certain criteria is no longer protected under the First Amendment.  This law would add hate crimes to the list of crimes that can be prosecuted under conspiracy statutes. >

r/Conservative  lost their fucking minds over this yesterday. They kept going on about how it’s racist, discriminatory , and doesn’t define what white supremacy is so non-whites can just willy nilly lock up white people for saying anything. >

Conspiracy isn't just speech.  It requires an "overt act" in carrying out the conspiracy.  They don't have a right to carry out violent hate crimes against people on the basis of race, they can fuck off. >

Where’s the overt act in this bill? The way it reads you can post something about replacement theory, some wackjob reads it days later and attacks someone, and suddenly you’re facing a felony. Seems like it violates the 1A. >

(iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a person who engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime.
Also, it's just expanding an already existing statute to include white supremacy hate crimes. >

Except race is already included in hate crime laws. And that’s not an overt act on the person of the person who posting something to social media. >

The overt acts are listed as a part of the conspiracy.  The overt act only has to be committed by one or more persons who were a part of the conspiracy. 
A, B, and C conspire to commit a hate crime by murdering people at a Walmart who are of latino decent. The ideology that drives the hate crime is replacement theory.  A purchases the weapons they plan to use, B publishes the ideology online which recruits D and E to help commit the crime, and C scopes out the Walmart for a day to commit the crime and when latino decent people are present.  They all are ready to engage in the plan as soon as C gives the clear.  The plan is clearly in action with the intent to carry it out and with overt acts in doing so. 
But then D gets cold feet and reports the plan to authorities before it is completed.  The group gets charged with conspiracy. >

Except the person posting the ideology doesn’t have to have met or ever conversed with the other conspirators before, at least under this law. >

Yes they do.
(A) at least one of whom engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime; and
(B) (iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a person who engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime.
You're trying to make it as a law banning hate speech online, which isn't the case here.  The title of the article is bs. >

Except that they can read it on Twitter or Facebook. I don’t count that as actually talking to someone. >

Racists hate when they're called racists when they were exercising their right to be a racists. >

WTF is with the 'Quotes' there, Fox? Fuck you and your belittling title for a serious on continuing racial issue you all love to stoke. >

This isn't really Fox; it's worse than Fox. "The National Desk" means that it's excrement extruded straight from the bowels of the Sinclair Propaganda Group.
Edit: Just so it's explicit: Sinclair is simply lying about what the bill actually says.
It's not banning hate speech, is treating people who incite crimes with hate speech as co-conspirators. >


The "Leading Against White Supremacy Act of 2023" seeks to "prevent and prosecute white supremacy inspired hate crime and conspiracy to commit white supremacy inspired hate crime" by amending Title 18 of the United States Code to "expand the scope of hate crimes."

We absolutely should be doing this >

It's pretty clearly unconstitutional though. You can't criminalize someone "inspiring" a crime without running afoul of Brandenburg and Hess. >

If it was just hate speech ie calling someone racial slur or being a racist in general…completely agree. However it stating that someone would be prosecuted if they help conspire and plan said a hate crime.
Unless I’m reading this wrong, it essentially allows hate crimes to be prosecuted on a greater scale. 
No speech itself should be outlawed by the govt, even hate speech. However, if an actual crime hate was committed there should be speculations to to criminalize those involved
Edit: read it wrong. Yeah. That’s unconstitutional. Different for social media platforms having TAC. Way different from govt. >


if they help conspire and plan said a hate crime.

Not even conspire or plan. Inspire. >

Yeah. Read a comment on someone else. Added an edit. It’s a no go in my book. There should be more crimes against white supremacy, but speech ain’t one of them >

You can read the actual bill. It's not true at all. There needs to be an underlying crime. >

Killed it for me on the first i. Placing on social media advocating for the great replacement theory. Do I think it’s sick and twisted? Yes. Do I think you should be persecuted by govt for said speech? No.
Should one lose employment and access to social media for said speech? Yes. Fuck around find out. However…the find out shouldn’t be by the govt. you’re approaching facist style shit there. >

So what about saying something about the solution to replacement theory is killing all of the problems... should the government step in then? How specific do we have to go to make this a threat instead of ”free speech”? >

Dude. Free speech should not be infringed upon. Hate speech isn’t a violation of 1a. 
If a law is passed to infringe upon the rights of free speech, it’s only a matter of “when” that gets turned around and put on non white people. 
Leave that to the violations of terms and conditions on said social media to ban said person. Inform person friends, loved ones, and employer and make the feel consequences of their actions outside of criminal prosecution. You’re going on a slipper slope by allowing certain bills  that directly go against the constitution >

I'm asking you when a verbal threat becomes actionable. Plain and simple. >

Laws should be colorblind. >

Republicans - “This is BULLSHIT!! I should have the freedom to be as racist as I fucking want! This is AMERICA god damnit!!! Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve gotta make sure gay people can’t get married and trans people and women can’t make their own health care decisions!” >

This is likely what she's going for. Making the Republicans come out publicly for white supremacists and their right to spread fascism. >

Just call it the Tucker Carlson Act. Tweaking hin directly will have more of an impact than a bill that's going nowhere. >

Okay. So this Sinclair propaganda is, in fact, lying. I'm shocked. They want us to believe there doesn't need to be an underlying crime but the bill is explicit that there must be. >

There needs to be an underlying crime. But for a conspiracy charge all you need is to have posted something that the perpetrator might have seen. >

No, the have to have actually seen or heard it; "might have" isn't good enough: 

(iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a person who engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime.

I would avoid posting shit from on of the most extreme right-wing propaganda companies in the country if you want honest discourse. Sinclair's actual goal is to have people come away from their articles believing things that aren't true. >

So what if the government proves they had heard it? Still doesn’t meet the incitement requirement. We haven’t even addressed the fact that this is viewpoint discrimination.
I’d also add that I posted a link to the bill text itself. If you can find an AP/Reuters or CNN link I’d be happy to post that too, but I couldn’t find it. >


Still doesn’t meet the incitement 

You really should read the text of the bill

(ii) could, as determined by a reasonable person, motivate actions by a person predisposed to engaging in a white supremacy inspired hate crime or by a person who is susceptible to being encouraged to engage in actions relating to a white supremacy inspired hate crime; and >

Except Brandenburg doesn’t use a “reasonable person” standard. Brandenburg requires that the speech be likely to lead to imminent lawless action. There’s no imminence requirement here at all. >

Conspiracy requires an overt act in furtherance in carrying out the conspiracy.  It's not just speech. >

That’s not what this bill requires for conspiracy. >

(iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a person who engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of a white supremacy inspired hate crime >

Oh hell no. There should NEVER be ANY law passed against a specific racial group. >


B) at least one of whom published material advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, antagonism based on “replacement theory”, or hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group, and such published material—
(i) was published on a social media platform or by other means of publication with the likelihood that it would be viewed by persons who are predisposed to engaging in any action in furtherance of a white supremacy inspired hate crime, or who are susceptible to being encouraged to engage in actions in furtherance of a white supremacy inspired hate crime;

Good luck with that.  1st amendment cuts both ways.  You can't have freedom of speech without allowing ALL speech to be free.  
Unconstitutional from the get go. >


You can't have freedom of speech without allowing ALL speech to be free.

What utter stupidity.
​
Fraud is speech, it is illegal.  Perjury is speech, it is illegal.  Telling a judge to fuck themselves is speech, it is illegal.  Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is speech, it is illegal.
​
According to your utterly stupid understanding, none of those things can be illegal with out freedom of speech not existing.
​
This problem, like all problems, only exist because stupid people believe stupid things they've heard but they are too stupid to understand.  It allows the corrupt to lie to them with ease and they are too stupid to ever even question the lies let alone see through them. >

What first amendment exception does this law fall into?