A light needs to be shined upon a certain malignancy that, from time-to-time, manifests in our nation’s discourse.
That is when celebrities, politicians and other public figures—i.e. “influencers”—say things they most certainly must know could induce some among their followers to murder a specific person they would like to see dead.
To paraphrase the laws of every jurisdiction in America, the solicitation of murder is a separate and distinct crime essentially defined as: the act of offering any kind of a reward or inducement to another with the intent of encouraging them to kill a designated person.
So … why do we as a society repeatedly turn a blind eye to thinly veiled attempts to induce others to murder someone—e.g. assassinate a President?—just because that person soliciting such a crime happens to be an “influencer?”
Consider the following glaring examples that occurred during President Trump’s first term:
- Charlie Sheen tweeted to his over 12 million followers that he would hope for God to kill the President Trump;
- Celebrity Chef Anthony Bourdain told millions of TMZ viewers he would prefer using poison;
- Madonna suggested a bomb might work;
- The New York's Public Theater evidently preferred a stabbing; and
- Johnny Depp agreed it might be a good time “for another actor to kill a President”; whereas
- Snoop Dogg’s video suggested a shooting would do; while
- Kathy Griffin graphically depicted the effective finality of decapitation.
Yet, even today with Biden in office, the animus toward President Trump hasn’t stopped.
Recently, a political media advisor named Rick Wilson—founder of a company ironically named “Intrepid Media, Inc.”—uttered the following words live on MSNBC in the context of his attempt to inform his listeners about the only way he thinks President Trump’s present political momentum can be stopped:
Recommended
"... You're still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump, and that's a fact."
Is statement this merely an opinion, or a solicitation of murder?
When words like this are broadcast to the public at large by an “influencer,” it should be considered to be latter, and prosecuted.
Of course, after the fact, “public figures” like Mr. Wilson would predictably dismiss their miscreant suggestions of homicidal violence as being nothing more than mere expressions of artistic license, exercises of free speech, political hyperbole or even failed attempts at comedy.
Yet, while it may be all of these things, that is not all it is. Most—if not all—of these public figures should be presumed to know it is also something more …. much more.
Influencers, by definition, are people who know they are not operating in a vacuum.
The point being, they are very well aware of the fact that they—and often the venues like MSNBC on which they appear—can, and often do, have millions of followers who like to watch them, admire them, love them and, in some instances, may even worship them. And, from that fact alone, it should be reasonable for law enforcement to hold such “influencers” accountable for also knowing that there exists a highly foreseeable probability that embedded within such “fan bases” there will be at least some who are mentally unbalanced—like say, those who, in their state of dementia, might foreseeably form the belief that by seriously attempting to kill the influencer’s named target they could hope to garner the favor of either the “influencer,” or, better yet, that of the influencer’s larger fan base.
It is within the context of this awareness, that any influencer’s call to violence should be judged in the eyes of the law.
Such “speech” is not just entertainment. It is not just comedy. It is not just “hyperbole.” Nor should it be considered just protected speech, any more than the First Amendment would protect the speech of a person entering the lobby of a bank while yelling “Hey everybody ... stick’em up!”
The plain fact is that any suggestion stated publicly by an influencer like, “You’re still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump” should be considered and treated for exactly what it is: an influencer knowingly—i.e. ”intentionally”—offering their approbation as an “inducement” to encourage “another”—i.e. any deranged individual within their audience who is listening—to at least start thinking about murdering the person the influencer has targeted … like say, President Trump.
And, with that, the occurrence of a solicitation of murder has been made complete. Again, even if the murder itself is never attempted, law enforcement would have the act of offering an inducement to another with the intent of encouraging them to kill a designated person.
And, for the commission of that crime, these “influencers” should be held to account.
Clifford C. Nichols is an attorney and the author of The American Landscape, A Barrister’s Tales and My Unspeakable Kindergarten Experience With Kavanaugh.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member