On July 26, a brawl (some call it a riot) broke out in downtown Cincinnati that led to serious injuries for a number of serious injuries for victims. The local Fox affiliate sums up why the case has become notable: 

“Stomach-turning footage of the viral brawl that broke out in downtown Cincinnati in late July has ignited public outrage as community leaders and members demand answers about the event that left six civilians injured.

The brutal beatdown gained traction online as the video of several victims being thrown to the ground and assaulted shocked the nation, forcing local leaders to answer for the unnecessary violence in a series of events that continue to play out on the national stage.  “

Another source continues: 

Viral footage of the street brawl showed a group of mostly black men surrounding Holly and an unidentified man, both of whom are white.

The two victims were punched and stomped on as they cowered on the ground. Holly was later sucker-punched and knocked-out cold, with blood pouring from her mouth as she lay defenseless in the city street after trying to intervene in the rumble.

Racial politics immediately entered into the situation since the most seriously injured victims were white, and they were surrounded by a much larger mob mostly composed of blacks. Specifically, the video showed a number of victims being beaten while lying on the street—most notably a middle-aged woman named “Holly” who was thrown down and sustained brain damage. 

In the aftermath of the event, there has been a lot of talk about “incitement” and who incited the mob to attack the victims. Since the brawl, several suspects (all black) have been arrested for beating the victims. Yet, so-called “black leaders” now blame at least some of the victims as supposedly at fault for “inciting” the violence from the mob: 

In the video, a man in a white shirt appears to have slapped another man in the face. More violence followed.

“And [mean]while the only people charged - again I’ll say it - are the ones who look like me,” Lynch continued.

Like the Cincinnati reverend, state Rep. Cecil Thomas (D-Cincinnati) is also wondering if and when the man in the video will face charges for inciting a riot.

Rep. Thomas remembers feeling disappointed after the city called for a press conference Aug. 6, announcing the arrest of the sixth suspect.

“Since that press conference, we have been asking why that individual, who slapped the Black person, that ignited what has been identified as aggravated rioting, wasn’t under arrest...

Now, if someone slapped someone else, that is assault and should be prosecuted as such. But much of this talk about “incitement” isn’t simply to find and punish the aggressors. It serves a larger political purpose. The purpose is to send the message that the brawlers and rioters who take part in the beating are somehow not fully responsible for their actions because they were “incited to act” by the actions of another. 

For example, some witnesses have claimed that the brawl began in response to a racial slur uttered by a white man against a black man. This may have been followed up by the aforementioned “slap.” Those calling for the prosecution of the beating victims for “incitement” are attempting to claim that the attackers were somehow “forced” to engage in violence—and are not responsible for their actions—because they heard a racial slur or saw one person slap another person. 

This type of thinking is extremely muddled to say the least. Although most jurisdictions do indeed consider incitement to violence to be a crime, the fact is that incitement is not a real crime because it does not deprive any other person of property or freedom. The idea of incitement assumes that people become automatons when they hear someone else encourage them to be violent through some means. In truth, no one is forced to start beating another person because he witnessed a slap or because he heard a racial slur.  The same holds true for the legal issue of “fighting words.” Racial slurs are often classified as “fighting words” which are, in US constitutional law, a type of incitement, and illegal because they supposedly lead to a breach of the peace. Fighting words and more general forms of incitement are not considered “privileged” in the sense that they are not protected by the “first amendment” or similar legal guarantees of “free speech.” 

But, like most legal limits placed on speech by judges and legislators, “fighting words” and “incitement” are not real crimes. Simply saying things does not constitute violence against anyone else, and if a fight ensues in the wake of such words being uttered, the only guilty parties are those who engage in real, actual violence. 

Murray Rothbard, not surprisingly, got the core of the argument, writing in For a New Liberty, that even some libertarians don’t take a sufficiently hard line on free speech. He explains: 

But there are areas in which even the most ardent civil libertarians have been unfortunately fuzzy. What, for example, of “incitement to riot,” in which the speaker is held guilty of a crime for whipping up a mob, which then riots and commits various actions and crimes against person and property? In our view, “incitement” can only be considered a crime if we deny every man’s freedom of will and of choice, and assume that if A tells B and C: “You and him go ahead and riot!” that somehow B and C are then helplessly determined to proceed and commit the wrongful act. But the libertarian, who believes in freedom of the will, must insist that while it might be immoral or unfortunate for A to advocate a riot, that this is strictly in the realm of advocacy and should not be subject to legal penalty. Of course, if A also participates in the riot, then he himself becomes a rioter and is equally subject to punishment. Furthermore, if A is a boss in a criminal enterprise, and, as part of the crime, orders his henchmen: “You and him go and rob such and such a bank,” then of course A, according to the law of accessories, becomes a participant or even leader in the criminal enterprise itself. 

If advocacy should never be a crime, then neither should “conspiracy to advocate,” for, in contrast to the unfortunate development of conspiracy law, “conspiring” (i.e., agreeing) to do something should never be more illegal than the act itself. (How, in fact, can “conspiracy” be defined except as an agreement by two or more people to do something that you, the definer, do not like?)

Even if fighting words—i.e., racial slurs—constitute a type of “advocacy” to start a fight, they are not a real crime, and no one should face and legal sanctions for the use of mere words. If person A utters fighting words or a more explicit incitement to violence, the only people guilty of violence are those who take action. 

While it may be politically helpful to claim that some people cannot be held responsible for their actions after being called a rude name, the fact is, everyone is responsible for his own actions whether or not another person encourages them.