Skip to main content

View Diary: "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You're right that the present court (5+ / 0-)

    may very well retreat from Brandenburg, given the chance, and I doubt that any of the incumbent Justices would join Douglas' concurrence, nor any likely appointee from Obama. But I'll not celebrate if and when such a ruling goes down. In the meantime, Brandenburg is the law.

    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 Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:26:39 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  yes and no - (7+ / 0-)

      as far as it being the law, because one can argue that the set of facts in which Brandenburg was decided are sufficiently different from the current environment that one does not know if Brandenburg is applicable.  And while I am not a lawyer, I believe there is enough other jurisprudence already that reads Brandenburg in a more limited fashion than you are propounding.  

      Since I am not a lawyer, and am merely reflecting what I have been told by some who deal with the issues professionally, this will be the last time I comment on this particularly matter on this thread.

      Again, let me reiterate -  I prefer maximal protection of individual rights.  But the most basic individual right is life.  In conflicts of rights one may find something otherwise protected is not.  

      And again, I start not with legal restrictions, which I hope should not be necessary, but with responsibility, to warn those who use that rhetoric that it is dangerous, to societal disapproval, moral suasion, wherever possible.  But I also do not want to see us reverting to a situation where someone like MB feels he must carry a firearm for basic protection.   Are their conflicts?  Yes, and that is part of the problem.  


      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 05:33:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks for discussing this so well (8+ / 0-)

        In my diary back on the Adkisson manifesto, we had a similar conversation in the comments, without coming to much useful conclusion.  This is precisely the conundrum we find ourselves in.

        1. For the most part, most of us on DKos value the first amendment and hold it sacred.
        1. For the most part, we abhor violence.
        1. We also feel directly threatened by the amping up of right wing hate speech.

        So the question is, how do we do something about 3 without violating our commitment to 1?  There aren't any good public venues to doing this.  Boycott is one.  Denouncement is another.  Both haven't proved wildly successful so far in this case.  Censorship would seem to offer a kind of solution, but at the violation of principles and the threat of actually legitimizing the right wing persecution fantasy.

        Thorny.  Thorny.  Thorny.

        Because for Zen surrealism, you can't beat living in the Bible Belt...

        by salvador dalai llama on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 07:49:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  An old legal standard is... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        subtropolis, seefleur, mamamarti

        My rights end where yours begin.

        Obama, his family, and others have a sacrosanct right not to have their lives abridged by violence.  So the right to advocate violence against them, or others, ends right at the point where someone might be encouraged to violate their right to life.

        Defining that point may be difficult, but that's what we have investigators for, and why the FBI and Secret Service are at this very time running themelves ragged trying to weed real threats from blowing off steam.

        But the more the steam builds, the more likely it is to blow the top off the pressure cooker for someone somewhere.

        And we as citizens become complicit in acts of violence if we ignore the threat of them when even to our untutored eyes they seem somewhat stronger than blowing off steam.

        Palin never discouraged those shouts.  Had a crime been committed by someone who attended her rallies, I personally would have considered her complicit, even if she was never charged.

        Like you I want maximal protection of our rights.  But when people offer to buy bullets or start buying guns, or start discussing such things in a way that approaches plotting or planning.... good bye.

        The austerity you see around you covers the richness of life like a veil -- Anonymous

        by winterbanyan on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 08:29:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Where someone MIGHT" is not the standard. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Rather, per Brandenburg, "likely to" and "imminent." Two-pronged test. Teacherken correctly suggests upthread that the imminence test is likely to see refinement reflecting speech in the digital age.

          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 Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 12:44:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site