3 ms·
Does that pass the "likely to produce" requirement?
by flippinburgers 4y ago
Does that pass the "likely to produce" requirement?
- lannisterstark 4y agoHess v Indiana did that. Note: >Hess uttered, "We'll take the fucking street later" or "We'll take the fucking street again." Hess was convicted in Indiana state court of disorderly conduct. >The Supreme Court reversed Hess's conviction because Hess' statement, at worst, "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time." In contrast to such an indefinite future time, the Court emphasized the word imminent in the "imminent lawless action" test of Brandenburg. Because the evidence did not show that Hess' speech was intended and likely to produce "imminent disorder", the state could not punish Hess' speech.[3][4]
- flippinburgers 4y agoWhile that shows the supreme court ruled in his favor because of a lack of time specificity, that doesn't mean that the court would necessarily rule against him had he specified a time. Speculatively there might be more involved in the assessment.