But he'll never go that far. It's overwhelmingly likely that AJ doesn't believe any of the crap he spews. His entire schtick is engineered to keep his idiot fanboys just riled up enough to send him money, but not riled up enough to actually do anything real.
But how can he know that? Sure he keeps them riled up by telling them stuff he almost certainly knows to be a lie. But how can he know what effect it's having on his audience? "Well, Your Honor, I expected to make them angry, but not
that angry."
Under the law the inciter must specifically recommend the illegal act. So if Jones says, "Go bomb innocent civilians," then he will have committed a crime. He doesn't do that, obviously, so he can't have incited the Boston bombers. But if he says, "We must resist the oppression of government by any means at our disposal," then later says, "No, no, I meant by any
lawful and
peaceful means," then how can he disclaim all responsibility when one of his listeners misinteprets what meant? Sure, he can be legally excused, but not morally excused.
Indeed, but I consider that also dishonest. His argument sounds like, "It makes no sense to connect me to the accused killers because I believe they weren't the real killers anyway, and that this is all just a government setup." That's just insulting. It's saying, "In my own little self-constructed fantasy world, I bear no blame, so stop blaming me." Now consider that his fantasy world exists only to earn him money and make him feel important. How does this "defense" work except to make him more slimy and sleazy?
He walks a fine line, and has been doing just that for almost two decades now.
Sure, just like there's a fine line between creative accounting and embezzlement. There's one level of scrutiny that asks, "Is this legal?" and another that asks, "Is this moral?" We're focused on the legality of his actions because the thread title asks whether Jones is guilty of hate-speech crimes. But legality is only a form of morality, and we should be thinking about those questions too if we're conscientious.
If one constantly exercises his free speech for the purpose of riling up people, and one of those people says he did what he did at least in part because of Jones' baiting, then how long will a civilized people let that stand? I always turn to George Washington's second inaugural address for guidance on this point. He notes that a free people must necessarily also be a disciplined people because civilization will not tolerate the harmful abuse of broad freedoms. Even within the constraints of a democracy, they will find a way to curtail the effects of abused liberty, and that will lead to the erosion of rights and freedoms for all.
So while we can certainly afford that Alex Jones is exercising his First Amendment rights, and that he has not, to my knowledge committed any crime, we must also afford that he is probably the kind of person George Washington was talking about.
There's no reason to think he'll suddenly screw up the balancing act so badly as to expose himself to criminal charges.
No, not intentionally. But if you live your life as a balancing act, sooner or later you'll slip and fall by accident due to some unforeseen factor. His act is inherently precarious, and miscalculations in his position have more dire consequences than for people whose professional life is not the equivalent of bear-bating.
