4 ms·
Interesting, I didn't realize that the "imminent" component disqualified recordings. I would have thought that an exhortation to do something lawless as soon as
by philipkglass 3y ago
Interesting, I didn't realize that the "imminent" component disqualified recordings. I would have thought that an exhortation to do something lawless as soon as you hear the message would count. Something like "Here's the home address of a Senator who called for military action against the Islamic State -- go burn his house down now!"
- jcranmer 3y ago> I would have thought that an exhortation to do something lawless as soon as you hear the message would count. That is almost literally the opposite of what Brandenburg v Ohio held! (Many people tend to do this: they assume that the phraseology is meant to limit speech along the lines of Schenck v US or Whitney v California, what is now known as the "clear and present danger" standard, which is what Brandenburg v Ohio was explicitly overturning.) Brandenburg v Ohio held that advocating violent overthrow of the government is free speech, but you need the very direct link between the speech and the illegal actions for the speech to become illegal. The emphasis in "incitement to imminent lawless action" of Brandenburg is meant to be "imminent", and later court cases have generally held that "imminent" is meant to be read in very short timespans.