It's just my anecdotal observation, but I offered a possible way to measure it. It would make for an interesting report.
I didn't want to define what a radical is, or what the new incitement of violence which includes indirect incitement would be. I wanted to focus on my point that this is about interpretation of an existing law that forbid certain speech, and not about imposing new restrictions on constitutional rights.
Personally, I think it's not right that we differentiate between "Go kill them" and "They're coming to kill us. Keep your guns close. Protect your family. They are doing horrible things. War is imminent. Something will happen soon. We're in danger. You and your family will be killed."
The second example is just as much an incitement of violence as the first. But it is not only legal, it is widely practiced.
This is "won't someone rid me of this turbulent priest?" on a massive scale.
I didn't want to define what a radical is, or what the new incitement of violence which includes indirect incitement would be. I wanted to focus on my point that this is about interpretation of an existing law that forbid certain speech, and not about imposing new restrictions on constitutional rights.
Personally, I think it's not right that we differentiate between "Go kill them" and "They're coming to kill us. Keep your guns close. Protect your family. They are doing horrible things. War is imminent. Something will happen soon. We're in danger. You and your family will be killed."
The second example is just as much an incitement of violence as the first. But it is not only legal, it is widely practiced.
This is "won't someone rid me of this turbulent priest?" on a massive scale.