Holding Politicians Accountable: Utilizing Civil Litigation To Fight Incitement To Violence – JP

Please Follow us on  Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Truth Social, Gettr, Twitter, Youtube 

In an era of heightened political polarization, inflammatory rhetoric from public figures has increasingly been linked to real-world acts of violence.  While freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy, there are legal boundaries where words cross into incitement.  This article explores how civil lawsuits can serve as a mechanism to hold politicians accountable for fomenting violence, regardless of party affiliation.  By examining the legal framework, historical precedents, and potential impacts, we can understand how the courts might act as a bulwark against dangerous discourse—focusing on truth-seeking principles rather than partisan blame.  The horrendous assassination of Youth Leader and Turning Point Founder Charlie Kirk brings this discussion to the forefront of our world culture.

The Legal Foundation for Civil Suits Against Politicians

Under U.S. law, politicians are not immune from accountability for their words if they directly contribute to harm.  The primary vehicle for such claims is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that allows individuals to sue state officials (including governors, mayors, and lawmakers) for violations of constitutional rights while acting “under color of state law.” If a politician’s statements or actions are alleged to incite violence that results in death, injury, or deprivation of rights—such as the right to life or due process—victims or their families could pursue damages.

However, the bar is high.  The First Amendment protects speech unless it meets the strict criteria established in *Brandenburg v. Ohio* (1969): it must be directed at producing “imminent lawless action” and be likely to produce such action.  Mere hyperbolic or critical language, even if divisive, typically doesn’t qualify.  Additionally, officials often benefit from qualified immunity, which shields them unless their conduct violates a “clearly established” right.  Sovereign immunity may also apply to actions taken in an official capacity, although personal-capacity suits can bypass this immunity.

Criminal statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. § 373 (solicitation to commit a crime of violence), could underpin civil claims, but proving causation—that the politician’s words directly led to a specific act—is challenging.  Courts require evidence of a proximate link, not just temporal correlation.

Historical and Contemporary Examples Across the Political Spectrum

While accusations of incitement often arise in partisan contexts, examples span both sides of the aisle, underscoring the need for non-partisan application.

Left-Leaning Rhetoric and Violence

Critics have pointed to Democratic figures whose language has been tied to unrest.  For instance, during the 2020 protests following George Floyd’s death, some politicians’ calls to “defund the police” or descriptions of systemic issues were blamed by opponents for escalating riots.  In Minnesota, Governor Tim Walz faced scrutiny for his handling of the Minneapolis unrest, where delayed National Guard deployment allegedly allowed violence to spiral, resulting in deaths and property damage.  Though no successful suits emerged, a hypothetical claim might argue that inaction or supportive statements constituted incitement.  More recently, on September 10, 2025, the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk by Tyler Robinson—a 22-year-old described by a high school friend as a “leftist extremist” from a Republican family—some have speculated links to anti-conservative rhetoric.  Robinson’s engraved bullets with anti-fascist phrases like “Hey fascist, catch” and references to “Bella ciao” echo broader narratives labeling conservatives as “fascists.” While no direct ties to specific politicians have been established, such cases highlight how repeated demonization could inspire lone actors.  Given the vociferous nature of many Democratic politicians, it is surprising that more lawsuits have not been raised against them.

Right-Leaning Rhetoric and Violence

Conversely, Republican figures have faced similar allegations.  After the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, lawsuits targeted former President Donald Trump and allies for speeches urging supporters to “fight like hell.” A federal appeals court allowed civil suits under § 1983 to proceed, ruling that Trump’s actions might not be protected by presidential immunity if they incited the mob.  In *Blassingame v. Trump* (2023), the court emphasized that while political speech is broad, incitement to imminent violence isn’t shielded.  Other examples include rhetoric around immigration or elections that critics claim have fueled vigilante actions or hate crimes.  This case remains at the district court level.  It has not been appealed to the Supreme Court, as the Department of Justice has ongoing investigations concerning covert and subversive activities related to the January 6 event, and the possibility exists that this could actually be an example of Left-leaning violence should the truth of the real perpetrators be revealed.

These cases illustrate that incitement is currently quite prevalent.  A 2024 Pew Research study found that inflammatory language has risen, correlating with a 20% increase in political violence incidents since 2016.  Civil suits, when successful, can result in compensatory damages, punitive awards, and injunctions to cease harmful speech.

How Civil Suits Can Deter Future Incitement

The power of civil litigation lies in its deterrent effect.  Unlike criminal prosecutions, which require government action and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, civil suits can be initiated by private parties with a lower “preponderance of evidence” standard.  Successful cases could:

1.  Impose Financial Penalties: Damage awards, even if symbolic, hit politicians’ personal finances or campaign funds, encouraging restraint.  The very threat of a genuine suit costs money in legal preparation.

2.  Force Public Accountability: Discovery processes reveal communications and intent, exposing hypocrisy and deterring others.

3.  Set Precedents: Rulings clarifying “imminent incitement” in the digital age—where social media amplifies words—could guide future behavior.

4.  Promote Bipartisan Reform: Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which are advocates for liberal causes, should be warning against stifling legitimate free speech while supporting suits in clear incitement cases.  The ACLU could finally be forced to be middle of the road and support clear violations and incitements by the Left, not just the Right.

5.  Peaceful and Civilized:  The legal process averts anger and physical damage to persons and property on all sides and confirms that we are a nation of laws and not brutes.

Challenges remain: Frivolous suits could be weaponized for political gain, and courts often dismiss claims due to immunity, standing, and a variety of other legalese maneuvers.  Yet, as seen in defamation cases like *Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News* (2023 settlement for $787 million), litigation can reshape media and political norms.  Though it seems likely that the people will ultimately have their way in this matter through Executive and Congressional action, as it seems likely the Trump Administration and a Republican Congress could outlaw all machine counting of election ballots.

Courts as Guardians of Civil Discourse

In a democracy, the answer to bad speech is often more speech—but when words lead to violence, the courts provide a peaceful recourse.  By pursuing civil suits against politicians who cross into incitement, society can discourage divisive rhetoric without resorting to censorship.  This approach must be applied even-handedly, focusing on evidence over ideology.  As political tensions simmer, from the Kirk assassination to ongoing unrest, empowering victims through litigation could foster a safer, more accountable public square.  Ultimately, holding leaders to account isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving the rule of law.  The scales of justice sometimes move slowly or even in the wrong direction, but a nation of laws and law-abiding citizens will ultimately win over hate and hateful behavior.