Likely it is something that is critical of some political ideology.
So let’s say there is a shirt that says “Real women have a uterus”, that is advocating violence against trans women because it is promoting spoken violence towards trans women to claim/advocate that they are not “real” women.
Other examples would be “Free Palestine”, “Palestine doesn’t exist”, “All Lives matter”, “Jan 6th was a peaceful protest”, “No cop lives matter”, “Hitler had some good ideas”, “Pants up, dont shoot”, etc.
I tried to include examples from both sides, but there are so many more examples from one side than the other…
I would say most of those examples don’t advocate violence. Don’t get me wrong, they’re controversial, but they aren’t immediately calling for violence.
Roger Stone posting a picture of a judge with crosshairs next to her head - that was directly advocating violence.
We aren’t discussing meeting the legal definition of advocating violence, we are talking about what someone considers advocating violence. Where the line is drawn between free speech and violence is subjective based on the ideology of the individual.
It is more likely the OP example is using the subjective definition than the legal definition because they are complaining to Amazon and posted it online.
I have never found items advocating violence… What kinds of items are those?
Likely it is something that is critical of some political ideology.
So let’s say there is a shirt that says “Real women have a uterus”, that is advocating violence against trans women because it is promoting spoken violence towards trans women to claim/advocate that they are not “real” women.
Other examples would be “Free Palestine”, “Palestine doesn’t exist”, “All Lives matter”, “Jan 6th was a peaceful protest”, “No cop lives matter”, “Hitler had some good ideas”, “Pants up, dont shoot”, etc.
I tried to include examples from both sides, but there are so many more examples from one side than the other…
I would say most of those examples don’t advocate violence. Don’t get me wrong, they’re controversial, but they aren’t immediately calling for violence.
Roger Stone posting a picture of a judge with crosshairs next to her head - that was directly advocating violence.
We aren’t discussing meeting the legal definition of advocating violence, we are talking about what someone considers advocating violence. Where the line is drawn between free speech and violence is subjective based on the ideology of the individual.
It is more likely the OP example is using the subjective definition than the legal definition because they are complaining to Amazon and posted it online.
Maybe a bat with nails through it. A sword makes me want to swing it around. Idk if that’s close enough for advocating violence.
That’s great, I’ll order it!
Man, those Negan cosplayers would have it rough if Amazon decided to not sell them said equipment /s