"Inciting A Riot"

When I first saw the footage of horns-guy et al storming the Capitol, I laughed and thought of how great of an event that must have been. Of course, I was under no delusion that nobody would be arrested. I imagined dozens, if not hundreds, would be charged with breaking a variety of laws, the bulk of which had special legal phrasing you are unfamiliar with but all amounted to something like 'you fought the cops & forced entry into a building, shame on you.'

Little did I expect that the Left would be gathering together with the goal of impeaching the President and charging people with inciting a riot.

When trying to discover what, exactly, would constitute inciting a riot, I stumbled across a video that only gave examples of explicitly encouraging violence at a demonstration. There was nothing about vague speech that could be interpreted as such.

Indeed, it appears to be the case when we look at 18 U. S. Code § 2102, the law is phrased in such a way to protect people against being accused of inciting riots for advocating things not clearly tied to the encouraging of rioting: 

(b)As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

Cornell.edu

Based off of a 'highlights' clip that I saw of various speeches by politicians in DC on the 6th, I'm left to wonder...

What, exactly, was said that can meet this high bar?

I have not seen any statements whatsoever that encouraged the violent resistance toward the police, or that compelled anyone to move in to attack the Capitol. 

If it is the case that there is a historical precedent which allows for people to be charged with inciting riots on less, the First Amendment has been badly damaged, and Cornell certainly would have to update their webpage. 

Americans have a right to advocate ideas and state beliefs that are controversial without being held legally responsible for the actions of those who are inspired by them (or who claim to be) who commit crimes. 

Any attempt to make the President culpable for these actions needs to fail miserably for the First Amendment to actually stay in tact. Otherwise people will face accusations of 'inciting a riot' whenever someone with some power and the ear of a prosecutor wants to hold someone with political sway culpable for violence during protests.

What is most funny to me, though, is how the media that will cheer on these charges against Trump could be said to be more guilty of inciting riots than the President himself:

Imagine what consequences there could be if the many statements given by the President and other politicians before the January 6th were also said to be evidence of their guilt? Publications would have to drastically alter the way that they write about any contemporary politics that could be controversial. Every statement with potential to touch on a topic that does create protests would have to be bookended with groveling to nonviolent demonstrations and peaceful protests & condemnations of violence. 

The very way that we would talk about issues would become bogged down in the ceremony of denouncing violence. 

There is no way that a functioning justice system can allow Pres. Trump or anyone else be held responsible for inciting riots. For, if they do, and they apply that standard fairly, the First Amendment would be eviscerated. 

But I am not under the impression that the US justice system is necessarily functioning, and I would never suggest that the laws are fairly & evenly applied. Thus, it's impossible to say what will happen.