I was wondering if there is any basis for a civil lawsuit against the filmmakers by the families of the Embassy personnel who were killed as a result (apparently as a result*) of the rioting set off by the anti-Mohammed film. Yes, free speech is protected, but you’re also not permitted to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. This film seems to be not only an example of yelling fire, but yelling fire with, if not the the intention of setting off some kind of rioting, then at least the awareness that it was highly likely (judging from reactions to the anti-Mohammed cartoons of a few years ago). I mean, I don’t think the filmmakers could credibly day, “Well, heck, we didn’t know people were going to react that way.”
*I know there is talk that the attack which actually killed the people was planned and organized and that the rioting over the film was a cover.
No, I don’t think the lawsuit would survive a “motion to dismiss.” I’m trying hard to articulate a cause of action that would apply to these facts. I think the concepts of “duty” and “proximate cause” would make such a case very difficult. Also, the defense of “Intervening/Superceding Cause.”
I’m a big proponent of holding people responsible for the harms they cause, and I think the civil justice system is a valid place for that to happen.
What you propose, however, seems to push the line a bit further than I’d be comfortable with.
No way; under current law, at least, you have to show some variety of intent.
This was how they got Tom Metzger, the white supremacist; he was shown in court to have urged others to commit violent acts. If he’d limited himself to harmless hate-speech, he would have been fine.
You can say “Ruritanians are inferior” all you want; the moment you say, “…And we ought to shoot them on sight,” you open yourself for some big trouble.
Even if there is a class of people who are known to react violently to hateful speech: that doesn’t make the speech the intentional trigger for the violence. Otherwise, we could silence any speech, simply by making it well known that we will punish it by violence. We call this “giving in to terrorism,” and most of us are against it.