Skip to main content

View Diary: Chuck Norris Says Right Wing Cells Will Overthrow the American Government This Friday (315 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the exception is.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kimball Cross, Dirtandiron

    ....threats against elected officials.

    Calling for an assassination is a felony.  

    Otherwise, the incitement standard applies with respect to calling for general insurrection.  Calling for armed revolution in the abstract is protected speech.  Doing it when you have an angry armed mob in front of a courthouse, is in the gray zone.  Doing it when the armed mob is sufficiently stirred up that they're about to act on it, is over the line.  

    •  Calling for assasination's protected, (0+ / 0-)

      unless imminent, as in 'there he is, get him.' Threatening assassination is slightly different than calling for it in the abstract, ie "I'm going to."



      This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

      by ben masel on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 10:07:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oh, as in "someone should poison that judge." (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jds1978, GANJA, Dirtandiron

        The Ann Coulter rule.  

        Hmm.

        IMHO that needs to be tightened up.  If Rush goes on the radio and stirs up a furor and then tells his wound-up audience that someone should go out and kill the president.... well sorry folks, that doesn't cut it, that damn well ought to be illegal.  

        Nor should freedom of religion include the right to deny medical care to one's children as per some of the reports on Christian Science families who refuse treatment and "let" their kids die agonizing deaths devoid even of pain relievers.  

        •  Keep the Bill of rights as it is. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GANJA, Remembering Jello, AndersOSU

          You may find you need it some day.

          I was once acquitted thanks to a ruling derived from Brandenburg. I hadn't actually given the impromptu speech the cops attributed to me, they were confusing me with someone with a superficial resemblance, but I was happy to take a ruling based on "even if I'd said it, it would not constitute a crime."



          This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

          by ben masel on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:47:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  lucky you, and one shouldn't legislate based on (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dirtandiron

            morons and nut cases, for example "how would a moron or a nut case react to that speech?"... but here one encounters an interesting quandary:

            What happens if you're not a public figure and you're the target of a "go out and get him" speech?  For example the anti-abortion terrorism that begins by giving out their home addresses and ends with a bullet through the kitchen window at night.  

            And should public figures have more, less, or equal protection compared to non-public persons?

            If we take alcohol and tobacco advertising off the airwaves because it might "encourage the behavior," then surely the same case could be made for threat speech.  That or let's see the dancing cigarette packs and hear the clinking martini glasses on the telly again.

            •  my thoughts (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ben masel, G2geek

              "how would a moron or a nut case react to that speech?"

               I think it's worth noting that the Brandenburg ruling doesn't say anything about a reasonable person, which is probably the way to go since an angry mob isn't renowned for it's reasonableness.

              And should public figures have more, less, or equal protection compared to non-public persons?

              Less.  If you choose to live a public life you get to deal with crazies talking about you.  Making threats is always over the line, but you can harass a private person in ways that you can't harass public persons.

              Threats are always illegal.  Inciting (imminent and likely) violence is illegal too.  Talking about armed rebellion, publishing pamphlets, and getting the word out that the government doesn't represent you and that you'd like to do something about it, is the sort of protection against tyranny this nation supposedly places a very high value on.

              It is my opinion that the pendulum has swung too far to the side of protecting the government, and we should allow some more leeway for freedom of speech and assembly.

              •  Alas, we're not going to get another Douglas (0+ / 0-)

                on the bench.

                His concurrence in Brandenburg criticizes the ruling for not protecting ENOUGH speech.



                This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

                by ben masel on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 07:58:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I agree- (0+ / 0-)

            We've managed to survive this issue as a culture for many many years- let's not over-react now.

            Will no-one rid me of this meddlesome priest?

            I'm gonna leave this brokedown palace, On my hands and my knees, I will roll, roll, roll.

            by Remembering Jello on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:13:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  What about inciting military personnel to mutiny? (0+ / 0-)

      Can anybody look up the US Code and see if there's a satute against that?

      i can't watch [Obama] speak on tv for more than 5 minutes or else what he's saying starts to make sense to me. It's very scary.

      by Kimball Cross on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:05:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site