You become a criminal when you commit a crime.
Until it is proven that you have committed a crime it is your right that the state works from the assumption that you did not commit it (and thus are no criminal). But whether or not the state *assumes *that you are a criminal - if you committed a crime you are one.
Then you are saying a majority of human beings are criminals? How many of us have driven drunk or cheated on our taxes or committed some other minor crime.
I do not know how many of us have committed a “minor” crime. But yes, I am saying you become a thief when you steal and not when you are convicted. You become a murderer when you commit a murder and a rapist when you commit a rape. Are you saying that you disagree?
People who have done those things are criminals, yes. I’m not really sure why that is vexing to you. It’s not a value judgment, but the distinction is really whether or not you got caught. You’re not a better person than any other tax evader merely because you weren’t prosecuted.
Just a better tax evader.
Then in your view Ghandi and MLK are criminals?
I admit to not knowing the biography of these two well enough to answer that question. If you tell me what they did, maybe I can.
But you have not answered mine: Are you saying that someone who committed a murder only becomes a murderer at the moment when he is formally convicted?
Gandhi, certainly. He broke the law. That’s how civil disobedience works. That is not to say he was not justified in doing so. MLK, possibly. I’m not sure if he ever broke a law that actually existed, and he was never convicted of anything. Again, if he did he was justified in doing so.
The murderer is an easy question…of course. But the larger issue is whether one is a criminal based solely on what laws a state creates. I mentioned Ghandi and MLK because they broke the law to make a larger point; civil disobedience, you know. In totalitarian states anyone who stood against the state would be a criminal. In this country the vast majority of people are criminals because we have violated some law/laws at some point. Im just trying to work out this idea in my mind. I dont have a larger point to make yet.
Edited to add I agree and respect NRATB for that principled reply.
Forget the difficulty in finding online trolls. The main problem, at least under Canadian law, would be to prove the elements of the offence.
Here’s an interesting article on the legal situation of “incitement” (or rather “counselling”) in general:
The problem:
Proving this will be difficult.
The situation in the US is even more difficult:
In short, it would prove difficult to actually prosecute these guys. They would doubtless argue that they did not really believe that the poster they were egging on actually intended to commit a crime, and it would be very difficult to prove otherwise (depending on what was actually posted of course).
Possible, but difficult.
That citation is inaccurate, or at least poorly worded. You don’t have to incite imminent violence to be convicted for speech-based crimes, in the sense that no violence actually has to occur (or even appear to be imminent). The distinction is that the violence you are attempting to incite must be imminent. “Let’s kill the President!” is okay. “Let’s kill the President in 15 minutes!” is not.
The way I understand the term being a criminal simply means that someone committed an act that is considered a crime under applicable law. Usually such an act will also be unethical, but not necessarily so. You are right in pointing out that someone resisting an unjust regime may find himself in a position where they must break the law. In my book that would make them criminals relative to the system they are resisting, but it would not make their actions unethical.
The citation appears to be saying exactly what you are saying. 
Excelent distinction…like the hungry man stealing bread for his family. This is why I love the Dope…I learn something every day.
I read “one has to incite imminent violence” as saying violence must be imminent from the incitement. In other words, it has to appear that someone is actually following your call to kill the President. But maybe it’s just poorly worded.
I didn’t read it that way. It could I suppose be read that way, but the following clause “… One has to incite imminent violence and be a palpably serious threat …” makes it less likely - it would be more natural to say there “… and the violence must be carried out …”.
That’s a good point, actually.
What about something along the lines of “inciting a murder?” I don’t know if that is an actual “thing” in the USA, but I have heard it on a lot of British TV shows. Just throwing it out there, it may be a fake thing there too.