3 ms·

The key word is usually immanent Unless there was someone with an actual firing squad or what have you while he is speaking, it's not directed towards immanent

by Natsu 6y ago

The key word is usually immanent Unless there was someone with an actual firing squad or what have you while he is speaking, it's not directed towards immanent lawless violence. Your own timeline points out that it was made a day later. Now, that doesn't make it any less repugnant, it just means that this particular speech can't be incitement unless there's some other events that let it fit the standard. Everyone has gone nuts lately. Even other lawyers like Ken White of Popehat were musing about some events being an "argument for the gallows" on Twitter.

eropple 6y ago
Either they've all "gone nuts", or things are actually that serious. (It is the latter.)
mlyle 6y ago
> The key word is usually immanent I don't know that word. ;) "imminent lawless action" and "likely" are the important words here. Imminent lawless action here usually means there's a specified timeframe (as clarified in Hess v. Indiana). Given that many people are explicitly talking about January 18th and January 19th violent action, it's hard for me to see how this standard isn't met. Daydreaming the overthrow of the government and murder of specific elected officials a week from now is not protected speech, especially when made credible by violent action a few days ago.
- Natsu 6y ago
  > Given that many people are explicitly talking about January 18th and January 19th violent action Unless one of those "many people" is Lynn Wood himself, that doesn't count. You can't just stitch statements from multiple unspecified people together to meet the requirements. Now, he's said a lot of things and maybe there's something not mentioned here that I don't know about that rises to that standard, but the fact that you think that merely "daydreaming" can rise to the standard shows me that you probably haven't read what they were saying in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
  - mlyle 6y ago
    > Unless one of those "many people" is Lynn Wood himself, that doesn't count I completely disagree. The context in which speech is uttered has bearing on whether it is likely to cause immanent [sic] lawless action. If someone else says January 18th, and you provide concrete suggestions and a plan to do so, without mentioning January 18th, you're not magically off the hook.
    - Natsu 6y ago
      We were discussing imminence, though, and you switched targets without actually addressing how Lynn Wood's statements meet the imminence prong of the test. You can't refute statements about one prong of the test by hopping on another. You're supposed to meet all prongs of the test. You're also contradicting Volokh, a well-known and well-respected liberal first amendment lawyer's analysis by vaguely gesturing at one of the cases discussed in that very article.
      - mlyle 6y ago
        > We were discussing imminence, though Yes, but immanence [sic] doesn't mean "right this second". It means at an understood point in the future, not during some undefined and indeterminate timeframe. If everyone else is talking about violent action January 18th, and then you talk about people you'd like killed in the same general conversation, you don't walk just because you never specified the specific time yourself. > You're also contradicting Volokh, a well-known and well-respected liberal first amendment lawyer's analysis by vaguely gesturing at one of the cases discussed in that very article. Argument by authority. We have constitutional lawyers on the other side arguing the bar set in Brandenburg is met by Trump's comments alone. e.g. Niehoff, Somin (who writes on Volokh Conspiracy, too). Let alone after the additional context of a violent outbreak and more outright threats.
        Natsu 6y ago
        > If everyone else is talking about violent action January 18th, and then you talk about people you'd like killed in the same general conversation, you don't walk just because you never specified the specific time yourself. And where, precisely, is that proposition found to be found in law or precedent? > We have constitutional lawyers on the other side arguing the bar set in Brandenburg is met by Trump's comments alone And now you switch subjects again to Trump's comments when we were discussing Lynn's. You're trying to gesture at an article you haven't even properly cited to blame a different person entirely which does nothing to establish that the authority gestured at even agrees with you in the first place. Now, if you have, say, a link to a proper legal analysis saying here are these specific statements by Lynn and this is why we think they meet the tests based on these and these precedents, then go ahead and present that. But if you're just going to continue to switch topics instead of trying to make your claims more precise, then I see no reason to engage further. Here, I'll even help you: http://userwww.sfsu.edu/dlegates/URBS513/howtodoa.htm http://userwww.sfsu.edu/dlegates/URBS513/howtodoa.htm The issue, so that we don't keep changing topics, should be: Whether Lynn Wood's January 7th statement "Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST." meets the test for imminent lawless action.

by Natsu 6y ago

eropple 6y ago

Either they've all "gone nuts", or things are actually that serious. (It is the latter.)

mlyle 6y ago

> The key word is usually immanent I don't know that word. ;) "imminent lawless action" and "likely" are the important words here. Imminent lawless action here usually means there's a specified timeframe (as clarified in Hess v. Indiana). Given that many people are explicitly talking about January 18th and January 19th violent action, it's hard for me to see how this standard isn't met. Daydreaming the overthrow of the government and murder of specific elected officials a week from now is not protected speech, especially when made credible by violent action a few days ago.

Natsu 6y ago
> Given that many people are explicitly talking about January 18th and January 19th violent action Unless one of those "many people" is Lynn Wood himself, that doesn't count. You can't just stitch statements from multiple unspecified people together to meet the requirements. Now, he's said a lot of things and maybe there's something not mentioned here that I don't know about that rises to that standard, but the fact that you think that merely "daydreaming" can rise to the standard shows me that you probably haven't read what they were saying in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
- mlyle 6y ago
  > Unless one of those "many people" is Lynn Wood himself, that doesn't count I completely disagree. The context in which speech is uttered has bearing on whether it is likely to cause immanent [sic] lawless action. If someone else says January 18th, and you provide concrete suggestions and a plan to do so, without mentioning January 18th, you're not magically off the hook.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    We were discussing imminence, though, and you switched targets without actually addressing how Lynn Wood's statements meet the imminence prong of the test. You can't refute statements about one prong of the test by hopping on another. You're supposed to meet all prongs of the test. You're also contradicting Volokh, a well-known and well-respected liberal first amendment lawyer's analysis by vaguely gesturing at one of the cases discussed in that very article.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      > We were discussing imminence, though Yes, but immanence [sic] doesn't mean "right this second". It means at an understood point in the future, not during some undefined and indeterminate timeframe. If everyone else is talking about violent action January 18th, and then you talk about people you'd like killed in the same general conversation, you don't walk just because you never specified the specific time yourself. > You're also contradicting Volokh, a well-known and well-respected liberal first amendment lawyer's analysis by vaguely gesturing at one of the cases discussed in that very article. Argument by authority. We have constitutional lawyers on the other side arguing the bar set in Brandenburg is met by Trump's comments alone. e.g. Niehoff, Somin (who writes on Volokh Conspiracy, too). Let alone after the additional context of a violent outbreak and more outright threats.
      - Natsu 6y ago
        > If everyone else is talking about violent action January 18th, and then you talk about people you'd like killed in the same general conversation, you don't walk just because you never specified the specific time yourself. And where, precisely, is that proposition found to be found in law or precedent? > We have constitutional lawyers on the other side arguing the bar set in Brandenburg is met by Trump's comments alone And now you switch subjects again to Trump's comments when we were discussing Lynn's. You're trying to gesture at an article you haven't even properly cited to blame a different person entirely which does nothing to establish that the authority gestured at even agrees with you in the first place. Now, if you have, say, a link to a proper legal analysis saying here are these specific statements by Lynn and this is why we think they meet the tests based on these and these precedents, then go ahead and present that. But if you're just going to continue to switch topics instead of trying to make your claims more precise, then I see no reason to engage further. Here, I'll even help you: http://userwww.sfsu.edu/dlegates/URBS513/howtodoa.htm http://userwww.sfsu.edu/dlegates/URBS513/howtodoa.htm The issue, so that we don't keep changing topics, should be: Whether Lynn Wood's January 7th statement "Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST." meets the test for imminent lawless action.