4 ms·

Can you point to the ruling? It looks like Google searches don't uncover any useful writing about a specific legal ruling allowing direct calls to violence aga

by dekhn 3y ago

Can you point to the ruling? It looks like Google searches don't uncover any useful writing about a specific legal ruling allowing direct calls to violence against a group, but as usual, I am always best convinced by specific links to articles referencing case decisions.

gnicholas 3y ago
Look up the true threats doctrine. There won't be any specific case law on the phrase you mentioned. Here's one summary of the doctrine: > The U.S. Supreme Court defined true threats in Virginia v. Black (2003) as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” According to the Supreme Court, true threats include when a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. [1] https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/what-constitutes-a-true-threat/ https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/wha...
- dekhn 3y ago
  I don't agree that applies in this case- in terms of Westboro, they very clearly advocate actual direct violence. In the case of the protesters at Harvard their intent is much less clear - I suspect even the people calling for intifada aren't attempts to elicit immediate violence. I broke my cardinal rule- never get involved in an internet discussion of free speech. Also, and this is purely opinion- I think the Supreme Court made an error in their ruling.
  - dpkonofa 3y ago
    It does apply. Westboro has already argued the “true threat” position and won. https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hurtful-speech-westboro-baptist-church-protected-20110302-105751-023.html https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hurtful-speech-westboro...
    - dekhn 3y ago
      Clearly, the justices and I have a difference of opinion about what a direct threat looks like (in the case of Westboro).
      - dpkonofa 3y ago
        Yes but, as someone else pointed out, Harvard is a private school that takes federal funding. The Supreme Court’s decision wouldn’t affect them either way.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    > I don't agree that applies in this case You don't think the doctrine applies, or you don't think it is satisfied? I think the bigger issue here is that Harvard does not guarantee First Amendment levels of free speech protection. They caution students about all sorts of protected speech, so what the First Amendment does or doesn't protect isn't really relevant.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    > in terms of Westboro, they very clearly advocate actual direct violence. They did? When I learned about them in law school, we only covered their unsavory protesting at military funerals, which did not involve advocating violence. What did they do that advocated direct violence?
    - dekhn 3y ago
      Sorry, I was working on the assumption that "Death to gays" was considered a direct call to violence, but it does not seem to be. (All of this was a misunderstanding caused by me misparsing a statement above suggesting Westboro was protesting at Harvard)
dpkonofa 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_president_of_the_United_States#Watts_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_president_of_t... It needs to something that a reasonable person who directly heard the speech would interpret as a “true threat” to a person or group. In the case above, the defendant made a claim that he was going to “set his sights on LBJ” if he was drafted and they “ever gave [him] a rifle”. He threatened to shoot a President of the US and his speech was found to be protected because of the qualification mentioned above. Two prior courts found him guilty and the Supreme Court reversed the decisions.

by dekhn 3y ago

gnicholas 3y ago

Look up the true threats doctrine. There won't be any specific case law on the phrase you mentioned. Here's one summary of the doctrine: > The U.S. Supreme Court defined true threats in Virginia v. Black (2003) as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” According to the Supreme Court, true threats include when a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. [1] https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/what-constitutes-a-true-threat/ https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/wha...

dekhn 3y ago
I don't agree that applies in this case- in terms of Westboro, they very clearly advocate actual direct violence. In the case of the protesters at Harvard their intent is much less clear - I suspect even the people calling for intifada aren't attempts to elicit immediate violence. I broke my cardinal rule- never get involved in an internet discussion of free speech. Also, and this is purely opinion- I think the Supreme Court made an error in their ruling.
- dpkonofa 3y ago
  It does apply. Westboro has already argued the “true threat” position and won. https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hurtful-speech-westboro-baptist-church-protected-20110302-105751-023.html https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hurtful-speech-westboro...
  - dekhn 3y ago
    Clearly, the justices and I have a difference of opinion about what a direct threat looks like (in the case of Westboro).
    - dpkonofa 3y ago
      Yes but, as someone else pointed out, Harvard is a private school that takes federal funding. The Supreme Court’s decision wouldn’t affect them either way.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  > I don't agree that applies in this case You don't think the doctrine applies, or you don't think it is satisfied? I think the bigger issue here is that Harvard does not guarantee First Amendment levels of free speech protection. They caution students about all sorts of protected speech, so what the First Amendment does or doesn't protect isn't really relevant.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  > in terms of Westboro, they very clearly advocate actual direct violence. They did? When I learned about them in law school, we only covered their unsavory protesting at military funerals, which did not involve advocating violence. What did they do that advocated direct violence?
  - dekhn 3y ago
    Sorry, I was working on the assumption that "Death to gays" was considered a direct call to violence, but it does not seem to be. (All of this was a misunderstanding caused by me misparsing a statement above suggesting Westboro was protesting at Harvard)

dpkonofa 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_president_of_the_United_States#Watts_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_president_of_t... It needs to something that a reasonable person who directly heard the speech would interpret as a “true threat” to a person or group. In the case above, the defendant made a claim that he was going to “set his sights on LBJ” if he was drafted and they “ever gave [him] a rifle”. He threatened to shoot a President of the US and his speech was found to be protected because of the qualification mentioned above. Two prior courts found him guilty and the Supreme Court reversed the decisions.