Davin News Server

On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 18:25:39 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>mark@invalid.com wrote:
>> You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech"
>> advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.
>
>Not the USA. You can only get in trouble if you commit a real 
>crime or take material steps thereof.

That's nonsense that only a "real" crime is punishable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is
unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent
lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[8]

Incitement to suicide
In 2017, a juvenile court in Massachusetts ruled that repeatedly
encouraging someone to commit suicide was not protected by the First
Amendment,[12] and found a 20-year-old woman, who was 17 at the time
of the offense, guilty of manslaughter on this basis.[13] The judge
cited a little-known 1816 precedent.[14] On February 6, 2019, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the defendant acted
with criminal intent, so her involuntary manslaughter conviction was
ordered to stand.[15] The United States Supreme Court declined to hear
the case in January 2020, leaving in place the Massachusetts Supreme
Court conviction.[16] 

Fighting words
Main article: Fighting words
A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive
speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that
speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[37] Fighting
words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an
immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is
a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary
citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to
provoke a violent reaction".[38] Additionally, such speech must be
"directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen
as a 'direct personal insult'".[39][40]

"True threats of violence" that are directed at a person or group of
persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily
harm or death are generally unprotected.[41] However, there are
several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that
"threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand
them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[42][43] Additionally, threats
of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are
constitutionally protected.[44]