Throwing around the term Nazi will get someone killed

Could it create a Civil Liability for Incitement?

It’s become very popular to categorize people that we disagree with as Nazi’s. This is not a “left” or “right” thing. Sadly, both parties and media pundits are engaging in this behavior.

It got me thinking about something: We have about twenty million people in this country that are mentally ill and a subset of them have homicidal rage and access to weapons.

When a person with these conditions hears the media, pundits, and friends convince them that someone is a Nazi - What are they expected to do?

How many of them will see this as an instruction? After all, I think everyone can agree we would have been better off if Hitler were stopped before he was able to carry out his horrific acts.

It seems incredibly predictable that this rhetoric will result in a portion of those that hear it to commit violence and potentially even attempt murder. Could there be consequences for this?

I should be clear. I’m pretty close to a free speech absolutist. The government should not censor its citizens speech in anyway besides for the extremely limited ways that are defined by the law and precedent. I even go so far as to think that “hate speech” laws are dangerous and a violation of the first amendment when they are limited by the government. As abohorent as I find hate speech, I think the remedy is not limits on speech, it’s more and better speech. Afterall, who is going to be the judge of what is exactly considered hate speech?

So when I talk about this “liability”, I want to be clear. I am not talking about government limiting speech. As awful as it is, I think people should be legally allowed to call others Nazis’. I disagree with it unless it’s an accurate term. But it should be allowed under the law.

Actually, the reason I joined the ACLU when I was 16 years old was because the ACLU, led by Jewish lawyer Aryeh Neier defended the free speech rights of neo-Nazis who sought to march in Skokie, Illinois, a town with many Holocaust survivors, arguing that the First Amendment protects even the most hateful speech, despite overwhelming public opposition.

This blew my mind that someone would believe in the constitution and the principle of Free Speech so much that they would literally fight for their enemy. It’s one of my strongest memories from that time of my life.

So, when I lay out this legal case. It is NOT advocating for the limiting of free speech by the government.

But there is another legal standard. It’s called Civil Liability for Incitement.

Civil Liability is much different than criminal liability.

Criminal incitement is prosecuted by the government, can lead to jail time or fines, and requires proving that speech intentionally and imminently encouraged unlawful action, while civil incitement is a lawsuit between private parties, where the penalty is financial damages, not imprisonment, and the standard of proof is typically lower.

Here are some examples of Civil Incitement:

• Rice v. Paladin Enterprises (1997) – A publisher was held liable for printing Hit Man, a book that gave explicit instructions on how to commit murder. The court ruled that the book was not protected speech because it directly aided and abetted a crime.

• Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists (2002) – Anti-abortion activists were held liable for posting “wanted” posters of abortion doctors, which were ruled as inciting violence and true threats rather than protected speech.

• Braun v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine (1992) – Soldier of Fortune magazine was held liable for running a classified ad for a hitman, which led to a murder. The court ruled the ad was an incitement to crime and not protected by the First Amendment.

• National Organization for Women v. Scheidler (1998) – Anti-abortion protest leaders were found civilly liable under RICO laws for inciting and coordinating violent attacks on abortion clinics.

Repeatedly labeling someone a “Nazi”—particularly a public figure—crosses a dangerous line. While it may not meet the strict legal threshold for criminal incitement under U.S. law (e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio’s requirement of intent, likelihood, and immediacy), it can still be considered a form of civilly criminal incitement—speech that foreseeably incites unlawful acts, like violence, opening the door to civil liability.

The risk is not abstract; it’s rooted in the real-world consequences of such rhetoric, especially when amplified in a society grappling with widespread mental illness, weapon access, and historical triggers. Below, I’ll explain why this is a pressing issue, starting with the mental health crisis that makes this accusation uniquely perilous.

The Mental Illness Angle: A Trigger for America’s Unstable

America is in the midst of a mental health epidemic, and provocative language like “Nazi” can act as a spark in a powder keg of untreated illness. The numbers on this are wild and scary:

• Prevalence: According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), 52.9 million adults—about 21% of the U.S. adult population—had a mental illness in 2020. Of these, 14.2 million suffered from a serious mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or severe depression, which severely impairs functioning.

• Violence Risk: While most individuals with mental illness are not violent, a small subset is at heightened risk, particularly when untreated. The Treatment Advocacy Center reports that people with untreated SMI are involved in about 10% of U.S. homicides. With roughly 16,000 homicides annually, that’s approximately 1,600 incidents tied to untreated SMI each year.

• Specific Conditions: Certain disorders amplify this risk. For instance, individuals with schizophrenia—about 1% of the population, or 2.6 million adults—are six to eight times more likely to commit violent acts if untreated or if comorbid with substance abuse. This translates to a homicide rate of 0.3 per 1,000 person-years among this group, compared to 0.05 in the general population—potentially accounting for 780 homicides annually from schizophrenia alone.

Now, consider weapon access:

• Firearms: A study in the American Journal of Public Health found that 22% of those with SMI—roughly 3.1 million people—own a firearm. Even if we conservatively estimate that 10% of the 14.2 million with SMI have guns, that’s 1.42 million individuals blending severe mental illness with lethal means.

• Gaps in Oversight: Federal laws bar gun ownership for those adjudicated as mentally defective, but many with SMI fall through the cracks via private sales or loopholes, amplifying the danger.

Why does “Nazi” matter here? The term isn’t just an insult—it’s a historical and emotional trigger.

Nazism conjures images of genocide and tyranny, and popular culture often justifies violence against Nazis as heroic (think punching Hitler). For someone with untreated psychosis, paranoia, or delusional thinking—conditions affecting millions—the repeated public branding of a figure as a “Nazi” could be interpreted as a call to action. They might see it as a moral duty to eliminate this “threat.”

Let’s estimate the scale:

• If just 1% of the 14.2 million with SMI—142,000 people—are prone to violence under provocation, and 20% of them (a conservative firearm access rate) have guns, that’s 28,400 individuals who could be one inflammatory accusation away from acting.

• Narrow it further: Among the 2.6 million with schizophrenia, if 0.1%—2,600 people—are triggered by “Nazi” rhetoric, and half have weapons, that’s 1,300 potential lone actors.

This isn’t speculation—it’s a foreseeable risk. The concept of stochastic terrorism supports this: mass rhetoric can inspire random violence without direct orders. When media, celebrities, or protesters relentlessly call someone a “Nazi,” they’re rolling the dice with America’s mentally unstable population.

Legal Liability: Civil Consequences of Incitement

If this rhetoric leads to violence, those who spread it could face civil liability. In civil law, speech that foreseeably causes harm can result in damages, even if it’s not criminally actionable. The argument hinges on two principles:

• Foreseeability: Is it predictable that calling someone a “Nazi” could provoke a mentally ill person to attack? Given the mental health crisis, weapon access, and the term’s incendiary nature, the answer is yes. Courts have held defendants liable for foreseeable harm from speech—e.g., in Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. (1975), a radio station paid damages after its contest spurred a fatal crash.

• Causation: If a violent act follows this rhetoric, and the perpetrator cites it as inspiration (e.g., in a manifesto or social media), a causal link could be established. In today’s digital age, tracing influence is easier than ever.

Imagine a scenario: a public figure labeled a “Nazi” is attacked by someone with untreated schizophrenia who claims they acted to “stop Hitler.” The victim’s family could sue the media outlet, journalist, or protester who popularized the label, arguing their words were the proximate cause. Damages could include lost income, pain and suffering, or punitive awards—potentially millions for a high-profile target.

Why “Nazi” Isn’t Just Free Speech

Some might argue that “Nazi” is protected under the First Amendment as opinion or political critique, citing cases like Snyder v. Phelps (2011). But civil liability doesn’t require a criminal violation. Speech loses protection when it foreseeably incites harm, and “Nazi” isn’t mere hyperbole—it’s a loaded accusation with a violent subtext. Unlike calling someone a “jerk,” it implies an existential threat that mentally unstable individuals might act upon.

Another counterargument: mental illness isn’t the main driver of violence, and spotlighting it risks stigma. True, most mentally ill people aren’t violent—but the focus here is a specific subset, not the whole population. Ignoring this risk doesn’t negate it; it just leaves us unprepared.

Conclusion: A Line Crossed

Calling someone a “Nazi” isn’t just provocative— it could create a Civil Liability for Incitement with a clear mental illness trigger. In a nation where 52.9 million adults grapple with mental health, 14.2 million face serious conditions, and millions have weapons, this rhetoric is a loaded gun.

When it inspires violence—as history and psychology suggest it can—those who wielded it may face a courtroom reckoning. The government should not limit free speech besides for extremely narrow circumstances.

But civil penalties for Free speech can be harsh, and civil law draws the line at foreseeable harm. This isn’t a question of if, but when.

Let’s please ton down the rhetoric on both sides and save these loaded terms for people that really deserve them.