Germany’s federal court declares Facebook’s hate speech curbs to be in breach of citizens’ constitutional rights

Well, well, well, the BGH has decided in something that our Twitter account was also dealt, being blocked from German Ministries and the Labor Agency.

We became aware of the BGH decision a week ago. The excellent UK Human Rights Blog was faster in translation. Small wonder, being freed from the shackles of the EU is liberating and invigorating. So we take the liberty and quote their post in full before we inform the concerned ministries and the BA to, perhaps, consider lifting their blockings. Here goes the UK HR Blog and we extend our gratitude.

Germany’s federal court declares Facebook’s hate speech curbs to be in breach of citizens’ constitutional rights

The Federal Court of Justice in Germany (the Bundesgerichtshof, or BGH) has ruled against the social network provider that deleted posts and suspended accounts amid allegations of “hate speech”.

The ruling was handed down on the 29th of July (Bundesgerichtshof, Urteile vom 29. Juli 2021 – III ZR 179/20 und III ZR 192/20) and at the time of writing this post, the full judgment had not been published. The following summary is based upon the Bundesgerichtshof’s press release. NB the quotes from the plaintiff’s Facebook entries are in the judgment, i.e. the public domain, in other words no offence is intended by repeating them here.

Judgments of July 29, 2021 – III ZR 179/20 and III ZR 192/20

The III Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice has ruled that Facebook’s terms and conditions of April 19, 2018 for the deletion of user posts and account blocking in the event of violations of the communication standards set out in the terms and conditions are invalid. This was because the defendant provider had not undertaken to inform the user about the removal of his post at least subsequently and about an intended blocking of his user account in advance, had not informed them of the reason for this and had not given them an opportunity to respond with a subsequent new decision. If, due to the invalid terms and conditions of the provider’s contract, a user’s contribution was deleted and their account temporarily subject to a partial blocking, the user should be able to claim the activation of the deleted contribution and, an undertaking that there would be no further account blocking or deletion of the contribution upon its renewed posting.

Background facts

The parties disputed the legality of a temporary partial blocking of the plaintiffs’ Facebook user accounts and the deletion of their comments by the defendant.

The plaintiffs each maintained a user account for a worldwide social network operated by the defendant’s parent company, whose provider and contractual partner for users based in Germany was the defendant. They claimed against the defendant – to the extent still relevant for the appeal proceedings – in respect of activation of the posts published by them on the network and deleted by the defendant, for an injunction against renewed blocking of their user accounts and deletion of their posts, and – in one of the appeal proceedings – for information about a company commissioned to implement the account blocking.

According to the network’s terms of use in the version applicable since April 19, 2018, the “Community Standards” may not be violated. These prohibit “hate speech” – defined in more detail there.

In the proceedings III ZR 179/20, the plaintiff posted the following contribution:

In contrast to [the assassinations committed by so-called citizens of the Reich] the murders by Islamic immigrants, which one has seen, have no consequences. German people are criminalized because they have a different view of their homeland than the regime. Migrants can murder and rape here and nobody cares! I would like to see a crackdown by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

In case III ZR 192/20, the plaintiff commented on a third party’s post containing a video in which a person with a migrant background refuses to be controlled by a policewoman as follows:

What are these people looking for here in our constitutional state … no respect … no respect for our laws … no respect for women … THEY WILL NEVER INTEGRATE HERE AND WILL BE IN THE POCKET OF THE TAXPAYER FOREVER … THESE GOLDIGGERS CAN ONLY MURDER … STEAL … RANDALIZE … AND VERY IMPORTANTLY … NEVER WORK.

The defendant deleted these statements in August 2018 because they violated the ban on “hate speech”. It temporarily blocked the user accounts so that the plaintiffs could not post anything, comment on anything, or use the Messenger function during this time. In their lawsuits, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was not entitled to delete their posts and block their user accounts.

Proceedings in the courts

In proceedings III ZR 179/20, the Regional Court dismissed the action. The Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against this ruling.

In proceedings III ZR 192/20, the Regional Court ordered the defendant to refrain from charging the plaintiff for posting the text:

What are these people looking for in our constitutional state – no respect – no respect for our laws – no respect for women. They will never integrate here and will be in the taxpayer’s pocket forever.

It also prohibited the defend from reblocking or deleting the post, if the post referred to people who resist a policewoman’s order on the basis that their ideology forbade them from letting women order them about. In all other respects, it dismissed the action. The plaintiff’s appeal was unsuccessful. On appeal by the defendant, the Higher Regional Court amended the judgment of the Regional Court and dismissed the action in its entirety.

The decision of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof)

The Third Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice partially overturned the judgments on appeal and – in proceedings III ZR 192/20, rejecting the appeal in all other respects – ordered the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff’s posts that it had deleted. In addition, in proceedings III ZR 179/20, it ordered the defendant to refrain from blocking the plaintiff from posting her contribution again or from deleting the contribution.

The defendant was not entitled to delete the plaintiff’s posts and block her user accounts on the basis of its terms of use and community standards. It is true that the amended Terms of Use of the Defendant, as amended on April 19, 2018, were effectively incorporated into the contractual relationship of the Parties by the Plaintiffs clicking on the corresponding button labeled “I agree” in response to the Defendant’s notice of the intended amendment, which was sent to them in the form of a pop-up window. However, the reservations granted in the defendant’s amended terms of use regarding the removal of user contributions and the blocking of user accounts were invalid pursuant to Section 307 (1) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) because they unreasonably disadvantage the users of the network contrary to the requirements of good faith. [my italics]

When examining whether a clause is unreasonable within the meaning of Section 307 (1) sentence 1 BGB, a comprehensive assessment and weighing of the mutual interests is required. In the present case, the conflicting fundamental rights of the parties – on the part of the users, the freedom of expression under Article 5 (1) sentence 1 of the German Basic Law, and on the part of the defendant, the freedom to exercise a profession under Article 12 (1) sentence 1 of the German Basic Law – must be taken into account and balanced in such a way that they are as effective as possible for all parties. This balancing of interests shows that the defendant is in principle entitled to require the users of its network to comply with certain communication standards that go beyond the requirements of criminal law (e.g. insult, defamation or incitement of the people). It may reserve the right to remove posts and block the user account in question in the event of a breach of the communication standards.

However, in order to strike a balance between the conflicting fundamental rights in a manner that is in line with the interests of the parties, and thus to maintain reasonableness within the meaning of Section 307 (1) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code, the defendant must undertake in its terms and conditions to inform the user concerned at least retrospectively about the removal of a post and in advance about an intended blocking of his user account, to inform him of the reason for this and to give him an opportunity to respond, followed by a new decision.

The removal and blocking reservations in the defendant’s terms and conditions did not meet these requirements. The defendant was therefore not entitled to delete the plaintiffs’ posts and block their user accounts. It was ordered restore the posts and refrain from blocking the user accounts and deleting the posts when they are posted again.


Facebook’s initial reaction was to welcome the BGH’s finding that the network was in principle entitled to remove content according to its own guidelines and to block the user accounts in question. The Telegraph online quotes a spokesperson for Facebook: “We do not tolerate hate speech and are committed to removing inadmissible content from Facebook”. He added that the BGH decision would be “carefully examined to ensure that we can continue to take effective action against hate speech in Germany.” The lawyer representing Facebook had called the court’s requirement for a prior hearing “completely impractical.” Every day, he said, there are hundreds of cases, and each new insult encourages like-minded people.

It will be interesting to see how in practice Facebook responds to this ruling, as its moderation system relies heavily on AI thus removing users’ comments without reason.

. . . . . . . . .

Here is a thread on Twitter about the decision.

So what are you at the BMAS, the BMFSFJ and the BA thinking about this? You guys feel addressed? You feel unconcerned? Stay silent? As it says in the Twitter thread:

1. Facebook has to inform users (at least) AFTER blocking/delete a piece of content, and BEFORE they intend to deplatform someone. Why? Because of a weighing of the different rights involved.

2. A terms of service clause that does not respect the rights of both parties is unreasonable. When examining whether a clause is unreasonable within the meaning of Section 307 (1) sentence 1 BGB, a comprehensive assessment and weighing of the mutual interests is required.

3. In the present case, the conflicting fundamental rights of the parties – on the part of the users, the freedom of expression under Article 5 (1) sentence 1 of the German Basic Law, and on the part of the defendant, above all, the freedom to exercise a profession under Article 12

Ball’s in your court.

Dad, what is “hate speech”?

German Ministry of Justice, does calling Germany a racist country constitute a criminal offence according to Criminal Code 185?

First some essential reading.
Human Rights Law Review: Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights: Whatever Happened to the Right to Offend, Shock or Disturb?

German-Style Internet Censorship Catches On Around the World. Do read the comments there.

The World Loves Free Speech—Except When They’re Offended. Finally, that ubiquitous “hate speech” trope and Popehat’s Ken White with ‘How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media’s Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies‘.

. . . . . . . . . .

Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz

cc Bavarian Administrative Court, Munich Administrative Court, Social Court Munich, Bavarian State Social Court, Local Court Munich

June 18, 2021

Statement ‘Germany is a disgusting racist country’ a criminal offense (CC 185) ?

Dear Federal Minister of Justice Lambrecht,

I can not help but notice that any form of Free Speech is in perpetual decline in your country that has meanwhile embarked on the hate speech trope. In a case in which a stupid and devious civil servant from Munich used a false name when filing a criminal complaint with Munich police in May 2015 against me and my Tibetan daughter, I demanded to see his personnel file. This in order to prove the real person behind the alias ‘C. Paucher’. As expected, it was declined.

In my complaint with the Bavarian State Social Court from May 7, 2019 (File # L 1 SV 16/19 B) I called Germany a “disgusting racist country” (“widerwärtiges Rassistenland Deutschland”). Judge Dietrich of the Munich Administrative Court saw this assessment as a vilification (“Schmähung”) (Criminal Code 185) of Germany in his decision from April 9, 2021 (File # M 32 K 19.4219 and M 32 K 20.508) and refused to accept the case (see annex). Based on a law that exists only in the province of Bavaria and contravenes Basic Law.

I am not sure now if this judge is aware that CC 185 protects the personal honor. A state is not a person or an individual. It pains me to have to expressly state the obvious, but I do get the distinct impression that free speech is not a fundamental human right this judge treasures. Besides, in just one letter judge Dietrich managed to impress me with his down to earth intellect.

As coincidence would have it, the ZEIT Online on June 6, 2021 featured – yet another – example of blatant racism in Germany. Martin Hyan relates there:

“We were beaten to hospital”.

Martin Hyun was the first German ice hockey player with Asian roots. Long before Corona, racism shaped his everyday life.

Martin Hyun: As a hockey player with South Korean roots, I was often the target of racism. From opposing players, coaches and fans. This was expressed quite openly, with insults like “Chink,” “Jap,” or “Fiji. Or with phrases like, “Why don’t you play in the rice paddy?” Once, fans referred to me as “Nasi Goreng,” and hundreds of spectators laughed. The message was clear: I am not one of them.

Hyun: Once I was stopped by a steward while I was out. He asked me about my function. He couldn’t imagine a person with Asian roots playing field hockey.

Integration in Germany? Hm, think again. Not even in German parliament.

Hyun: My parents came to the Federal Republic as guest workers in the early 1970s. My father was a miner, my mother a nurse. They were the first-born children and regularly sent money to their families in South Korea. My parents also worked weekends and never took vacations so that we children could afford the expensive schoolbooks. I thought that with a good degree, all doors would be open to me later. But it wasn’t like that.

ZEIT ONLINE: What was your experience?

Hyun: I worked temporarily for a member of parliament in the Bundestag. Once, a woman there wanted to call security because she couldn’t believe that someone like me was working in the hallowed halls of politics. Another time, during an interview for a job in diplomacy, I was asked about my loyalty to Germany.

More incidences readily spring to my mind:

Refugee withdraws Bundestag candidacy because of threat.

Tareq Alaows was the first refugee to want to run for the Bundestag. Now the Green politician has withdrawn his candidacy. The reasons are the “high threat situation” and “massive experiences of racism”.

Burning mattress in police detention cell with foreign person on it. Dead! The NSU killings … all covered up.

Does all this surprise me at all? No, considering the way your German labor agency Jobcenter, the Federal Labor Agency BA and your courts treated me and my Tibetan daughter.

So here is my question, Minister:

Does calling Germany a racist country constitute hate speech and /or is it a criminal offence according to Criminal Code 185?

The Minister of Justice’s opinion would then enable me to argue a criminal complaint against judge Dietrich and the Social Court Munich on a solid legal foundation. A criminal complaint for vilification of migrants in Germany. It will be fruitless, but in its ineffectiveness ultimately prove for the umpteenth time what Germany is, a disgusting racist country.

Please feel free to reply in German, preferably in Pdf form. Letters overwhelm me technically.

Thank you,

2nd anniversary of ECHR Euro Clowns’ covering up German civil servant Jürgen Sonneck’s idiocy to hide behind the alias “C. Paucher”


German Registrar Claudia Westerdiek, imbued with exquisit cultural and symbolic capital, and complemented by habitus. Section V – European Court of Human Rights. Expertly executed by judge Potocki in Single-judge decision.

The complaint and background is here and here the letter from a year ago.

Complaint 51482/18


The European Court of Human Rights has decided in a single-judge setting to declare the above complaint inadmissible.

The decision of the Court is annexed hereto.

This decision is final and is not subject to appeal to a tripartite committee, a chamber or to the Grand Chamber. Therefore, you will not receive any further letters from the Court in this case. The Court shall not keep the file in its archives for more than one year from the date of this decision. (1)

This Decision shall be rendered in one of the two official languages of the Court (English or French) and shall not be translated into other languages.

The Registry of the European Court of Human Rights

. . . . . . . . . .


introduced on 29 October 2018

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 10 January 2019 in a single-judge formation pursuant to Articles 24 § 2 and 27 of the Convention, has examined the application as submitted.

The Court finds in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto and that the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention have not been met.

The Court declares the application inadmissible.

André Potocki
Just trust The German Connection. No relation to The French Connection. I have that on good authority from “Popeye” Doyle.

The German Connection at the ECHR.

And here is His Stupidity Jürgen Sonneck in person. Why did nobody tell moron Jürgen the IP address is transmitted when you send an email to police?
C. Paucher, or is it Jürgen Sonneck from Munich’s Referat für Bildung und Sport?

Strafanzeige gegen Bundesjustizministerin Christine Lambrecht wegen Verleumdung von US Präsident Trump


Turmstraße 91
10559 Berlin

‘Mistrust all in whom the urge to punish is strong!
Mistrust all those who talk much about their justice!’

10. Jan. 2021

Ich erstatte Strafanzeige gegen

Bundesministerin Christine Lambrecht,
Behördenleiterin des Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz

wegen Verleumdung (§ 187 StGB) des amerikanischen Präsidenten Donald J. Trump und Verstoss gegen Art 5 GG.

Am 07. Januar 2021 twitterte die Behördenleiterin des BMJV, Christine Lambrecht, unmittelbar nach den Ereignissen im Capitol von Washington vom 06. Januar ihren Kommentar zur Blockierung des amtierenden (!) Präsidenten der USA, Donald J. Trump, auf Facebook und Twitter. Sie versieht diesen Tweet auch noch mit dem Hashtag “Demokratie”! Der Tweet lautet:

“Twitter und Facebook haben die Accounts des amtierenden US-Präsidenten Trump gesperrt. #Capitol #Demokratie
Dass Twitter und Facebook Trumps Flut der Lügen jetzt unterbrechen, ist eine viel zu späte Einsicht. Wut, Hass und Aggression waren viel zu lange ein Teil des Geschäftsmodells, mit dem die Plattformen reich geworden sind. Wir werden in Europa verbindliche Pflichten für die Internetplattformen schaffen, um Wahlen zu schützen, Hetze zu löschen und gegen Lügen konsequent vorzugehen.
Christine Lambrecht, Bundesministerin der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz”

Diese sozialistische Ministerin unterstellt dem amtierenden amerikanischen Präsidenten Donald J. Trump DIREKT NACH den Vorfällen im Capitol zu Washington vom 06. Jan. 2021, er hätte Hetze und Aggression geschürt in seiner Rede vom gleichen Tag. Implizit beschuldigt sie ihn damit zur Aufstachelung und macht ihn verantwortlich für die Vorfälle im Capitol. Es steht ausser Zweifel, sie hat es nicht für nötig befunden, Trumps Rede überhaupt zu lesen.

Damit begeht diese durchtriebene Bundesministerin genau das, was sie Trump vorwirft: sie lügt schäbig und genau, wie man es von einem Politiker erwartet. Hier ist die Rede von Präsident Trump nachzulesen.

Gut, dass man nicht angewiesen ist auf die deutsche Shitpaper Presse und seine schwanzlutschenden (1) Journalisten, sondern dass es integre Blogger gibt wie Ann Althouse, Rechtsprofessor an der University of Wisconsin Law School, jetzt emeritierter Professor. Im Blog Post “The 7 most violence-inciting statements in Donald Trump’s speech to the crowd on January 6th.” befasst sie sich mit Trumps Rede. Hier ist ihr Post übersetzt:

Hier ist das Transkript. Ich las die gesamte Rede – die über eine Stunde dauerte – und suchte nach den Sätzen, die am meisten der Interpretation unterliegen, dass er die Menge dazu aufrief, in das Kapitol einzubrechen oder irgendeine Art von Gewalttat zu begehen. Ich mache das, weil mir klar wurde, dass ich keine Zitate von Trump gesehen habe, sondern nur die Behauptung, dass die Rede eine Anstiftung und eine Ursache-Wirkungs-Schlussfolgerung war, die auf der Abfolge der Ereignisse beruhte: Er sprach und dann handelten sie.
Es gibt Stellen, an denen er eindeutig von einem friedlichen Protestmarsch sprach. Er sagt: “Ich weiß, dass alle hier bald zum Kapitol marschieren werden, um friedlich und patriotisch Ihre Stimmen zu Gehör zu bringen.” Und: “Also werden wir die Pennsylvania Avenue entlang gehen … Also gehen wir die Pennsylvania Avenue entlang.”
Aber hier sind die 7 gewalttätigsten Aussagen. Wenn Sie etwas Gewalttätigeres oder mehr im Zusammenhang mit der Idee finden, in das Kapitol einzubrechen und das Verfahren physisch zu stören, lassen Sie es mich wissen und ich werde es der Liste hinzufügen. Folgendes habe ich gefunden und in die Reihenfolge von am wenigsten bis am gewalttätigsten gebracht:

7. Wir gehen zum Kapitol hinunter und werden unsere tapferen Senatoren und Kongressabgeordneten anfeuern. Wir werden einigen von ihnen wahrscheinlich nicht so viel zujubeln, weil Sie unser Land niemals mit Schwäche zurückerobern werden. Man muss Stärke zeigen und man muss stark sein.

6. Um einen Lieblingsbegriff zu verwenden, den Sie alle wirklich erfunden haben, werden wir den Diebstahl stoppen…. Wir werden nicht zulassen, dass sie Ihre Stimmen zum Schweigen bringen.

5. Die Republikaner müssen härter werden. Sie werden keine republikanische Partei haben, wenn Sie nicht härter werden.

4. Wir werden jemanden dort haben, der nicht dort sein sollte, und unser Land wird zerstört, und wir werden nicht dafür eintreten.

3. Wir werden niemals aufgeben. Wir werden niemals zugeben, es passiert nicht. Sie geben nicht zu, wenn es um Diebstahl geht.

2. Wir werden es nicht zulassen. Ich werde es nicht zulassen.

1. Gemeinsam sind wir entschlossen, die Regierung des Volkes, des Volkes und des Volkes zu verteidigen und zu bewahren.” (Ende)

Diese Ministerin unterstellt dem amtierenden Präsidenten – gewählt von 75 Millionen Menschen – des Landes, das Deutschland von den Nazis befreit hat und die mittels Sozialisten an die Macht kamen, Äusserungen, die er belegbar nicht getätigt hat und befürwortet seine Knebelung. Die Aussicht, die sie für Europa macht, lässt nur erschauern. Diese Ministerin sollte ihres Amtes enthoben werden. Doch Eingriff in die freie Meinungsäusserung liegt im DNA dieser Deutschen.

Cadit quaestio

(1) Ich bedauere den Terminus, aber mir fällt bei deutschen Journalisten nichts anderes mehr ein. Einen Günter Gaus gibt es leider nicht mehr.

German Minister of Justice disseminates blatant lies, spews anger against US President Trump

‘Mistrust all in whom the urge to punish is strong! Mistrust all those who talk much about their justice!’


German Justice Ministry’s tweet against US President Trump hails his removal from Twitter and FB.

Above the tweet @BMJV_Bund from Jan. 7, 2021.


“Twitter and Facebock have blocked the accounts of the incumbent US President Trump. #Capitol #Democracy

That Twitter and Facebook now interrupt Trump’s flood of lies is far too late a conclusion. Anger, hatred and aggression have been part of the business model that made the platforms rich for far too long.
We will create binding obligations for Internet platforms in Europe in order to protect elections, erase hate speech and consistently take action against lies.”

That is one heck of a sinister statement by a minister of justice who, btw, is a socialist. Keep in mind, this tweet from the BMJV was published right after the Capitol incident on Jan. 6. This minister accuses President Trump of hate speech and aggression. The minister has obviously no respect for the First Amendment. She has with absolute certainty not read the transcript of Trump’s speech from that day in Jan. 6 and not listened to it. (Merkel after 16 years in office still needs an interpreter when an English-speaking guest talks).

The German Minister of Justice anchors the intention of Germany (and that is Europe) on lies of Trump. That’s pretty disingenuous. Nobody would be surprised when told that politicians (Trump is not one) do lie. Most people would certainly prefer not to be lied to but nobody raises an eyebrow when politicians do so. It is a given. You live with that. You expect it.

For this German minister it took way too long that platform companies – they are not media houses! – infringed free speech. This in reference to the President of the United States Donald J. Trump still in office. A president that 75 million of US citizens voted for. It tells you everything about socialists. Socialists, who sealed Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. Hello “Bücherverbrennung”! Say what you want, it is in the German DNA.

But lies are only her false flag as she quickly moves on to the real intention of Germany/Europe and that is two-fold. Citing anger as reprehensible shows how low her threshold of acceptable free speech is. Her cliffhanger though is ‘hate speech’ and, secondly, it irks her that US companies reap all the financial benefits. At this point it is not quite clear, is she now more concerned about alleged hate speech or is it the profits Twitter generates? Looking at net income of Twitter gives you a pretty mixed picture over 5 years and that is an American company. One can expect a European Twitter would be funded by the EU and be a continuous loss maker. The Germans will also make sure a Tweet Gestapo keeps everything neat and those who transgress will be, err, concentrated.

Citing hate speech as a profit center for FB and Twitter is daft and shows only that this socialist politician has no idea how advertising works. It’s hard to imagine that a Twitter user will buy a BMW when seeing a Trump rant and right below a car ad. That Twitter shares lost some 1.3% the day Trump was 86ed is nothing special and does not prove anything.

It gets even better. Germany wants binding obligations to protect elections. Trump won by a fair election four years ago. Since that day German news sites have been chock full of articles about Trump, all of them negative. Articles three rows deep that you could get the impression this is a US news site in German. The meddling of Russians bullshit story, Muller, alleged sex offences, the undying hope that Trump would finally fall … the German media fell for everything and never understood Trump, a movement. The recent US election has at least some question marks to account for.

Keep in mind again, this tweet of the BMJV was published right after the Capitol incident on Jan. 6. It accuses President Trump of hate speech and aggression. Tongue in cheek she probably also alludes to alleged incitement of violence by Trump on that day in January. Here is Ann Althouse, law professor at University of Wisconsin Law School, now a professor emerita, and her post:

The 7 most violence-inciting statements in Donald Trump’s speech to the crowd on January 6th.

Heres the transcript. I read the entire speech — which was over an hour — looking for the sentences that are most subject to the interpretation that he was inciting the crowd to break into the Capitol building or commit any sort of act of violence. I’m doing this because I realized I wasn’t seeing quotes from Trump, just assertions that the speech was an incitement and cause-and-effect inferences based on the sequence of events: He spoke and then they acted. 
There are places where he clearly talked about a peaceful protest march. He says: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” And: “So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue… So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”
But here are the 7 most violent statements. Please, if you can find anything more violent or more related to the idea of breaking into the Capitol and physically disrupting the proceedings, let me know, and I’ll add it to the list. This is what I’ve found and have put in order from least to most violent:

7. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. 

6. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal…. We will not let them silence your voices.  

5. The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.  

4. [W]e’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.  

3. We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.

2. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen. 

1. Together we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people. 

Finally, here is again Althouse about

Twitter has “permanently suspended” Donald Trump “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”

That is excellent reporting by a blogger. The German Justice Minister is engaging in libel, disseminating blatant lies and spewing pathetic anger based on ignorance against the head of a country that freed Germany from the Nazis. Besides, a Turkish cleaning lady wears better hair.

Justice Minister Lambrecht