LIES ARE NOT PROTECTED SPEECH

[Smackdown2019]

So lets put it this way....

If we all sue Fox Intertainment News, Trump and his Trumpers.... they would loose!

Their Lies have caused our Capitol to be attacked and people died!

They spread fear with their Lies...

The government can also

Arrest them!


Its just like yelling fire in a movie theater....

They instead send fear to those to bear arms.......


"Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court of the United States held that in order to lose First Amendment protection as incitement, speech must be “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action "

[brooklynite]

1. You're a lawyer?

Please share the Statute under which you can successfully sue them and under which the Government can arrest them.

(Answer: you can’t and they can’t)

[Smackdown2019]

8. Brandenburg v. Ohio

Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made in 1964.

He also announced plans for a march on Congress to take place on the Fourth of July.


Sounds familiar?

[brooklynite]

9. Name a statement by Fox that SPECIFICALLY advocated violence

Getting the audience angry at someone doesn't meet the Brandenburg standard.

[Smackdown2019]

12. I have seen clips of their commentators

That have said outlandish statesments of falsehoods that has caused these wackos to take arms against the United States .... i dont watch Fox..... but, i am sure there are clips that show the lie of the stolen election rhetoric....

[brooklynite]

13. And "falsehoods" is not equivalent to "advocating violence"

If you read the rest of the thread, nobody agrees with your assertions. Perhaps that says something?

[onenote]

11. Have you read the case you just cited?

Because the law under which Brandenburg was charged was found to be unconstitutional in that case, making it an odd case for you to rely on.

Presumably, your citation of the case answers the question of whether you are a lawyer for us (and that answer it would appear, is no).

[PhoenixRisingAgain]

15. Are you sure?

After all, he did clearly state that if they were sued...they would loose!

[drray23]

2. Lies are absolutely protected speech

Unless you are under oath being interviewed by law enforcement or in a court of law, you are perfectly allowed to lie. People are free to try to sue you for defamation too.

[kentuck]

3. Unfortunately, that is true.

Who is to police what is the "truth" and what is not?

The only place to challenge the lies is in the arena of public opinion.

[KPN]

17. I hear you. But there is a difference between being

actively protected and protected because it (a category of speech) is/are explicitly not protected. Lies broadcast by influential agents are an example to which this could be applied. I’m not 100% sure a class action lawsuit could not be successful against media intentionally broadcasting lies or misinformation in service of a specific goal that results in harm, injury or damages.

I’m not an attorney, but I’m not convinced that lies are protected free speech when the result is harm. I believe there are legal minds who could make a convincing case — at least in lower courts.

[NYC Liberal]

4. Lies are protected and so is yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[madinmaryland]

6. Uhh? Yelling movie in a crowded firehouse is ok, but yelling fire in a crowded movie house is not.

Is that legal in NYC?

[elleng]

7. HEY MAD!!!

[madinmaryland]

10. Hey Ellen! I was in Ellicott City for a job on Tuesday morning!

Drove out Monday and was back home Tuesday afternoon! 1000 miles in two days.

[NYC Liberal]

16. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is legal everywhere in the United States.

Schenck v. United States is the Supreme Court decision where "yelling fire in a crowded theater" came from and the context was justifying the jailing of anti-war protesters.

It was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which significantly limited restrictions on speech. The standard is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

[sarisataka]

5. Start with a false premise,

Reach an incorrect conclusion

[UTUSN]

14. Hah! for the best Subject title!

[OMGWTF]

18. Another thing, the Bible is not admissible in a court of law as proof of anything.

Yet, these Nationalist Christians (Nat-Cs for short) want everyone to live under its spell of fantastical stories told by illiterate shepherds. NFW!

[Kaleva]

19. Yelling fire in a theater is protected speech

The 1969 case you cited made it so.

[Sympthsical]

20. I mean, they are protected speech

So . . .

"Arrest them!"

Ah. The authoritarian portion of the program.

[alphafemale]

21. Maybe you are thinking "libel?"

Which is extremely difficult to prove.

Think Hustler magazine vs Falwell.

Lies are absolutely protected. As they must be.

[Celerity]

22. de-rec on so many levels