Davin News Server

On 6/16/2024 6:42 PM, mark@invalid.com wrote:
> 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

True, but you were wrong when you claimed advocacy of violence is not 
protected by the First Amendment. To the contrary, it is generally 
protected with the exceptions noted below: 1) incitement of imminent 
lawless conduct, 2) criminal intent, 3) fighting words, and 4) true threats.

Thus, if someone writes an editorial arguing that "Jews who support 
Israel should be killed," that's almost certainly protected by the First 
Amendment.
> 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]
> 
> 
>