I think you should watch the speeches given at the event immediately prior to the rioters going to the capitol building and violently seizing it, including Trump's.
It's the nature of the things that you can always argue about whether a particular speech rises to the level of incitement. E.g., the words like "stir", "encourage", and "stimulate" from the definition are not black-and-white terms.
However, the actual sequence of events are a pretty strong argument for incitement. There's a simple and easy to follow implication of cause and effect here.
Also, remember, we're talking about his video after the violence broke out. If he didn't understand that his claims of election fraud before the riot would lead the riot, he must certainly have understood it during the riot.
Thanks for the response. For me, that's not strong enough a case to say that Trump's social media posts should be censored or blocked. I simply don't see it as incitement of violence. His claims of fraud are misleading for sure, but if the standard is around "violence" specifically, I feel that blame cannot be laid at his feet in a provable manner - because this is a highly political, highly emotional situation, I am looking for evidence that would almost meet a legal standard, like beyond a reasonable doubt (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reas...).
I also think the actions taken by tech companies here reflects a double-standard. For example, why isn't AOC being blocked for supporting rioting? Why weren't Democrats called out for attacks on federal property in Portland, Seattle, and other cities? Look at https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/07/aocs-comms-director-ask... for an exploration of this.
To me, it just looks like big tech companies picking winners and losers in an ongoing political and cultural war, and are reacting to societal or political pressures in taking action rather than acting in any principled manner.
> "The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable. Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows. To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable… that’s the point."
Where in this statement is there any incitement for rioting or violence?
Now let's take a look at Trump's actions on Wednesday[1]:
> "You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough and we will not take it any more"
> "And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
This is how Trump described the rioters:
> "These are the things that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long."
Contrast this with Pence's response:
> "This attack on our Capitol will not be tolerated and those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law"
> The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable.
This is a thinly-veiled statement in support of protesters engaging in criminal activity to get their way politically. That is the dictionary definition of terrorism (which the capitol incident also qualifies for). I agree it isn't explicit in stating that. But Trump's statement doesn't explicitly call for criminal activity either.
His statements are not asking for violence but asking to challenge the results and fight for what you want politically. That's what every side does in every political confrontation. You COULD also read it as a thinly-veiled statement pushing for violence. But it is entirely subjective to label one that way but not the other. And therefore, big tech companies should hold BOTH AOC and Trump to the same exact standard, or neither.
All that aside, I agree Pence's statement is better and wish Trump was more forceful in condemning these acts and left the "explanations" out.
> For me, that's not strong enough a case to say that Trump's social media posts should be censored or blocked.
One clarification: Trump's accounts were not blocked for his speech or event before the riot. They were blocked for his response during the riot.
E.g. during the riot he tweeted, "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"
So there's a little at the end that is good. But he mostly expresses that the violent insurrection is justified, praises the perpetrators, and suggest that they are the victims. He posted a video with similar sentiments as well. This was while it was still on-going.
It's the nature of the things that you can always argue about whether a particular speech rises to the level of incitement. E.g., the words like "stir", "encourage", and "stimulate" from the definition are not black-and-white terms.
However, the actual sequence of events are a pretty strong argument for incitement. There's a simple and easy to follow implication of cause and effect here.
Also, remember, we're talking about his video after the violence broke out. If he didn't understand that his claims of election fraud before the riot would lead the riot, he must certainly have understood it during the riot.