[Seattle-editorial] spd and our site - any liability issues?

[Sheri Herndon]

in response to jim's comment to joseph about what the spd are saying 
about the indymedia site being used to "incite", here's what a few 
attorneys had to say about this:

from eff:

I don't know what content is being referred to, so this is purely theoretical.

The Brandenburg incitement test is pretty protective of advocacy. 
Roughly speaking, to be punishable, advocacy of violence must be 
intended to cause harm and likely to cause imminent harm.  Even civil 
liability for speech requires both causation and specific intent 
under Claiborne Hardware.

These cases involved face-to-face rallies.  EFF has always argued 
that it's virtually impossible to meet the incitement standard in 
public online speech, particularly where the incitement is of offline 
activity.  There's such a big gap between the supposedly inciting 
words and the harmful act.  This has been cut back a bit by the Ninth 
Circuit in the Nuremberg Files case (which relied on "threats" 
doctrine) but I still think it's a tough standard.  It's not like a 
fiery speech that incites a mob to break windows and vandalize 
storefronts.

from local attorney burman:

At the moment, anyway, I don't think you need much protection.  It sounds as
if the police are just stating their opinion.  I doubt they will act on that
opinion, in Seattle at least, but if possible you should not let such
opinions go unanswered.  You should make it clear that the organization (to
the extent there is one) does not espouse violence or seek to incite
violence but that the billboard-type comments are not your responsibility.

-- 

Be realistic and do the impossible, because if we don't do the 
impossible, we face the unthinkable.

-- Murray Bookchin