Coming from a country that has similar laws: it’s about inciting hatred or violence.
Phrased as the previous commenter did, literally making it illegal to say lock them up, might not work.
But.
Saying Trump should be locked up for his crimes is not inciting hate or violence, because he has objectively committed crimes and the courts should do their job thankyouverymuch. Saying AOC should be locked up for made-up crimes based on made-up law is a different matter altogether.
But I’m aware that the US legal system has a looong way to go before it can accomodate for such distinctions.
It is different but do you expect a trial for person A saying person B should be locked up to first hold a mock trial for person B without access or standing to actually do so correctly before they can render a verdict on person A? Objectively unreasonable.
This is also massively prone to abuse. Even creating a plausible context for prosecuting someone creates the potential for effectively punishing critics even if everyone one of them gets off. This is further assuming that they actually get off even if innocent by your standards and mine.
Then there is the simple fact that based on US law this is sufficiently contrary to our laws that it would require a constitutional amendment which would be impossible to pass. It doesn’t matter if it could be passed in your country it certainly couldn’t be passed in this one.
Coming from a country that has similar laws: it’s about inciting hatred or violence.
Phrased as the previous commenter did, literally making it illegal to say lock them up, might not work.
But.
Saying Trump should be locked up for his crimes is not inciting hate or violence, because he has objectively committed crimes and the courts should do their job thankyouverymuch. Saying AOC should be locked up for made-up crimes based on made-up law is a different matter altogether.
But I’m aware that the US legal system has a looong way to go before it can accomodate for such distinctions.
It is different but do you expect a trial for person A saying person B should be locked up to first hold a mock trial for person B without access or standing to actually do so correctly before they can render a verdict on person A? Objectively unreasonable.
This is also massively prone to abuse. Even creating a plausible context for prosecuting someone creates the potential for effectively punishing critics even if everyone one of them gets off. This is further assuming that they actually get off even if innocent by your standards and mine.
Then there is the simple fact that based on US law this is sufficiently contrary to our laws that it would require a constitutional amendment which would be impossible to pass. It doesn’t matter if it could be passed in your country it certainly couldn’t be passed in this one.
And we’re moving farther from that goal with every decision handed down by our Supreme Court.