Barring unstated circumstances? No shit, Sherlock. That would be because of a little thing called context and a legal concept called the "reasonable person". To make a long story short, a reasonable person is a hypothetical that is summed up as "what would an average person reasonably think/do under these circumstances". An evocative example would be that a reasonable person would expect an official contract promising a million dollars for services rendered to be legally binding, but a reasonable person would
not expect a drunk yelling a challenge of "I'll give a million dollars to anyone who can name this song" in a bar to be legally binding. This isn't some technicality or unknown concept, it's one of the goddamn backbones of the legal system. And while I have little doubt that you'll try anyway, the simple fact of the matter is there is no way to seriously argue that a reasonable person would interpret the Beastie Boy's song as a call to action under the stated circumstances.
Conversely, a reasonable person
would interpret Trump's speech at his "Stop the Steal" rally that was explicitly planned and scheduled to immediately precede his base's "Save America" march on the Capitol as a call to action, due to the surrounding circumstances before, during, and after. Let's recap: Setting aside for a minute the call to action in the name of the rally itself, the guy has been claiming almost nonstop since Election Day 2020 that the election should be considered invalid and be overturned, made numerous calls to State legislators telling them to unilaterally overturn the results (and later
to decertify them) and declaring them "RINOs" who were letting the Democrats "get away with murder" because they dared to tell him - in no uncertain terms - that he was asking them to do something illegal and they weren't going to break the law by acquiescing. He also filed lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit trying to get the courts to overturn the election, and then held press conference after press conference
lying to his base that the courts had
clearly never looked at the evidence (when in fact they frequently went into detail about how he was trying to pass speculation and rumormongering off as evidence), and that Trump's legal team - and I quote - "had evidence that the election result was the ‘greatest crime of the century if not the life of the world'". And then of course there's the
fake electors plot that was running concurrently.
That is the context in which he held his "Stop the Steal" rally and told his attendants that their imminent march on the Capitol
was their last chance to make Congress overturn the results, and that if they didn't succeed they wouldn't have a country anymore.
Never mind that it should be self-evident that the lyrics of a hip-hop song intended for popular release (which is to say, explicitly designed purely for entertainment) almost three decades ago is a dramatically different context than a political rally (a endorsement of and demonstration of support for a stated cause) with the explicit purpose of drumming up fervor for the storming of the Capitol that immediately followed that was done with the explicit goal of getting Congress to unilaterally overturn the election results and declare that the rally's central figure would remain in power. Never mind that the man himself would imply later that same day that the violent breach of the Capitol was both predictable and justified retribution for not overturning the results like he and the mob were demanding. To quote: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away". To try and draw equivalence between
all of that and a Beastie Boys song is simply inane.
They are
not even close to the same thing and, frankly, I'm gobsmacked that you're either not smart enough to understand that or too much of a disingenuous contrarian to care.
