4 ms·

Thanks for offering some clarification! For the sake of argument, the law in Samoa under the state of emergency is that you must vaccinate. Is the accused not

Thanks for offering some clarification! For the sake of argument, the law in Samoa under the state of emergency is that you must vaccinate. Is the accused not attempting to incite lawless behavior by telling people to not vaccinate? If one person resists because they read his FB posts, that seems enough to me.

the_watcher 7y ago
American law doesn't apply in Samoa (as opposed to American Samoa). But for the sake of argument, yes, it would satisfy part of one element ("directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action"). However it wouldn't satisfy the imminence requirement. Further, it would not satisfy the other ("is likely to incite or produce such action"). It's fairly easy to see that this is the case just by looking at what Americans have actually said. A memorable example to me was Zach de la Rosa telling the crowd at Coachella 2007 that every President since Truman should be lined up and shot. That is absolutely inciting lawless action, but no one with any kind of understanding of US free speech law would suggest he could be prosecuted.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  I guess we don't know exactly what was posted from the article, but I was imagining that it wasn't just "Vaccines are bad" but rather something more like "Don't open your door when the emergency vaccinators come around", which would be advocating for imminent action. I still think the only reason this wouldn't be illegal in the US is that the underlying law forcing vaccination would probably be unconstitutional, not that the First Amendment protects anti-vaxx speech indefinitely.
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    The US has applied imminent incredibly narrowly. "Don't open your door when the emergency vaccinators come around" would absolutely be protected speech in the US.
    - henryfjordan 7y ago
      Well that surprises me. Thanks for explaining everything!

the_watcher 7y ago

American law doesn't apply in Samoa (as opposed to American Samoa). But for the sake of argument, yes, it would satisfy part of one element ("directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action"). However it wouldn't satisfy the imminence requirement. Further, it would not satisfy the other ("is likely to incite or produce such action"). It's fairly easy to see that this is the case just by looking at what Americans have actually said. A memorable example to me was Zach de la Rosa telling the crowd at Coachella 2007 that every President since Truman should be lined up and shot. That is absolutely inciting lawless action, but no one with any kind of understanding of US free speech law would suggest he could be prosecuted.

henryfjordan 7y ago
I guess we don't know exactly what was posted from the article, but I was imagining that it wasn't just "Vaccines are bad" but rather something more like "Don't open your door when the emergency vaccinators come around", which would be advocating for imminent action. I still think the only reason this wouldn't be illegal in the US is that the underlying law forcing vaccination would probably be unconstitutional, not that the First Amendment protects anti-vaxx speech indefinitely.
- the_watcher 7y ago
  The US has applied imminent incredibly narrowly. "Don't open your door when the emergency vaccinators come around" would absolutely be protected speech in the US.
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    Well that surprises me. Thanks for explaining everything!