The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence. The Netherlands has, in practice, some of the most expansive free speech rights of any corner of the planet, yet they had no problem signing on (to this non-binding agreement).
AFAIK courts have established precedents that it has to be "threat of imminent harm" - so promoting violence is OK ("kill all XXX") but shooting "fire" in a theater isn't.
Streaming a terrorist attack doesn't seem to result in a "threat of imminent harm" I think - if anything, it could prevent harm (because the viewers could report the violence and police could prevent further violence).
> But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.
In these sorts of discussions I think it's very important to quote the relevant parts of such a large, dense document when linking to it.
US Code, Title 18, §842(p)(2)
(A)
> to teach or demonstrate the making or use of ... or to distribute ... information pertaining to ... the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction
> ... with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence
(B)
> knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence
Note that this very narrowly applies only when intent can be demonstrated, at which point you are arguably an active participant in whatever crime is being committed. In my opinion, that is quite different from your earlier claim.
> The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence.
This isn't regulating mere promotion, it's regulating a form of active participation. The Christchurch Call agreement isn't even remotely similar.
Bomb making instructions are generally protected speech.
Distributing such instructions with the intent to further a crime makes the speech unprotected. But, each element (e.g, knowingly intending to further a crime, and so on) has to be proven in a court of law to strip the speech of its protected status.
From the statute you linked:
"...with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence;"
You should be aware that just because something is in the US Code, doesn't mean that it's actually enforceable. For example, there's a law that bans burning the American flag:
Perhaps. Unfortunately absolute enshrinement of anything and the inability to critically evaluate when to allow for common-sense deviation from such enshrinement is a bit of a progress-stopper.
The problem with common-sense as a guide for law is that it changes dramatically over time, and often over short periods. It also remains to be seen whether or not this will result in progress in the long term.
It's fortunate that we've been in one of the longest periods of relative peace in post dark age Western European history, but I don't generally count on that trend continuing forever. Making sure a government has significant enshrined limitations on its own power is important, not in the good times, but in the bad.
Common-sense deviations, a.k.a. an exceptions to the rules are often ill-conceived acts of emotional stupidity that don't age well. If it was so obvious, why wasn't it part of the rule in the first place?
