What’s changed today is that the internet massively amplifies both reach and immediacy. A single post or video can instantly equip thousands with the tools to cause harm, collapsing the time and distance that once separated advocacy from action. Still, expanding the definition of conduct too far poses real dangers. Governments could overreach, labeling controversial or unpopular speech as “dangerous.” The challenge then is to craft a narrow standard that targets operational facilitation, speech whose sole and intended purpose is to enable violence, without chilling legitimate political or academic discussion. In my view, perhaps the evolution we need is not in the abandonment of “imminence” or “intent,” but in how those terms are interpreted in a nuanced context. When someone deliberately publishes instructions designed for a dispersed audience of potential attackers, that may satisfy intent even without a specific listener. Imminence, meanwhile, might need to account for technological immediacy and the resulting harm that can be instantaneous once the information circulates. Ultimately, the First Amendment must continue to shield ideas and debate but not what essentially become blueprints for harm disguised as ideology.
What’s changed today is that the internet massively amplifies both reach and immediacy. A single post or video can instantly equip thousands with the tools to cause harm, collapsing the time and distance that once separated advocacy from action. Still, expanding the definition of conduct too far poses real dangers. Governments could overreach, labeling controversial or unpopular speech as “dangerous.” The challenge then is to craft a narrow standard that targets operational facilitation, speech whose sole and intended purpose is to enable violence, without chilling legitimate political or academic discussion. In my view, perhaps the evolution we need is not in the abandonment of “imminence” or “intent,” but in how those terms are interpreted in a nuanced context. When someone deliberately publishes instructions designed for a dispersed audience of potential attackers, that may satisfy intent even without a specific listener. Imminence, meanwhile, might need to account for technological immediacy and the resulting harm that can be instantaneous once the information circulates. Ultimately, the First Amendment must continue to shield ideas and debate but not what essentially become blueprints for harm disguised as ideology.