Let's assume the following scenario. A charismatic neo-Nazi takes teenagers of 15-17 years that are known to be violent and preaches them about hatred and about how Jews and blacks should be killed. One of the teenagers kills a Jewish girl. Do you think the neo-Nazi should be convincted of muder?
The neo-Nazi didn't actually kill the Jewish girl, now did he? At most, I think he could be liable as an accessory to murder.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
You've already started this thread twice:
In both threads you've made one post besides the opening one.
Have you gotten anywhere? Have you developed your theory? Why don't you write about your point of view instead of repeating the question to others?
I learn with every thread. These things all fall into grey areas, and that's why I ask for your help.
Why don't you get a book on the US legal system? We went over this in the second or thrid week of a 300 level civil rights/liberties class.
There are limits to freedom of speech
Clear and present danger
This depends on several factors:
A: Does the charismatic Neo-Nazi (let's call him David Duke for the sake of brevity and familiarity) know that these teenagers are highly prone to violence and will act on his words? This degree of knowledge will at the very least make a significant difference in sentencing, if not clear Duke of the charges altogether.
B: Under US law, only direct, imminent incitement to public disorder is legally prosecutable, so it would depend on how literally he intended the students to take his "kill" statements.
I'd guess that he'd probably either be acquitted if he got a good lawyer, or charged as an accessory in a "hate" crime if he didn't.
The question is not what the current situation is, but what do you think the situation should be in a libertarian society.
I think we should create totalitarian society to catch those dirty incitementers.