Before the assault on the U.S. Capitol most of us assumed that President Trump’s hateful rhetoric ended with a few loud cheers and fifty posts on social media. A.A. (after the assault) it became obvious that there was a correlation between violence and the President’s violent language, even if he did not directly order an assault.

Over the weekend the ex-President said that Senator and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had a “DEATHWISH,” an expression people use to warn others of potential violence inflicted on them. He made the ominous remarks on his own platform Trump Social on Saturday after the vote to prevent a government shutdown, followed by the passing of the Electoral Count Act, a measure to avoid the counting chaos on January 6, 2021. The post in full context:

“Is McConnell approving all of these Trillions of Dollars worth of Democrat sponsored Bills, without even the slightest bit of negotiation, because he hates Donald J. Trump, and he knows I am strongly opposed to them, or is he doing it because he believes in the Fake and Highly Destructive Green New Deal, and is willing to take the Country down with him?” Trump wrote. “In any event, either reason is unacceptable. He has a DEATH WISH. Must immediately seek help and advise from his China loving wife, Coco Chow!”

Given the connection of the threat to the events of January 6, 2021, this condemnation has the strength of incitement to violence, regardless of what the ex-President might say. He could say he did not act violently, but he could not claim he did not incite the assault. Remarks like these in the era of A.A. no longer come under the right of free speech.

In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement

Clearly this is a gray area in the law, and if no violence occurs, no one will prosecute. But in the event of an attempt to harm Mitch McConnell or his wife (whom Trump also targeted), it would be fair to hold the man who said “DEATHWISH” accountable.

That is certainly the premise of the January 6 Committee investigating the assault on the Capitol for both active and indirect participation in the violence.  There is no doubt the Committee believes the President is culpable, but proving it in a court of law will be a challenge.

In the era A.A.  former President Trump must consider his mouth or keyboard a loaded gun.  That probably corresponds to his power fantasies, but in court he will claim the right to free speech, as if his words were merely words and not bullets.  He no longer has the license to make threats, direct or indirect. He has deluded minions ready to execute his impulsive threats, idle or serious.

In fact controlled research has already shown the effect of the former President’s words on violence. Karsten Müller and Carlo Schwarz investigated the impact of the President’s deprecating language about Muslims concluding

we find that a one standard deviation increase in Twitter usage is associated with a 32% larger increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes since the 2016 presidential primaries. Further, Trump’s tweets about Islam-related topics predict increases in xenophobic tweets by his followers, cable news attention paid to Muslims, and hate crimes on the following days.   

Müller, Karsten and Schwarz, Carlo, From Hashtag to Hate Crime: Twitter and Anti-Minority Sentiment (July 24, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3149103 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3149103

The “sticks and stones” defense of language being harmless no longer applies to a public figure whose followers are inclined to act, rather than just echo his words.  The ex-President knows this in his heart, but he will stand by his First Amendment rights to say what pleases him. He may find the bar that determines what “incitement” is could be lowering in the post A.A. era.

Perhaps we all should reflect on the power of our words in social media, whether we are potent influencers or not.  Our words contribute to the flow of language that may grow to hate or violence on social media or push an unstable gun owner over the edge. Our words are connected to other words, and the consequences are unpredictable. We may not have the ex-President, but we may be grateful for that. We would be sorry to find our words as incitement to violence, when we just wanted to level a “harmless” insult.  In the era A.A. those are the words that incite Fascism, whether we intended it or not.