Conspiracy to incite riot vs free speech

[cthulu2016]

63. Saying Islam is bullshit is expressive speech.

Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 05:19 PM - Edit history (1)

It is hard to think of clearer example of expression of viewpoint than saying that some religion is BS. (The expression that Islam is awesome is surely an expression of viewpoint, not an incitement to Terry Jones to start some shit.)

Me saying in this post, "Islam is bullshit," could start a riot somewhere. But even if I am currently hoping that it will start a riot, and even if I just typed that with the intention of starting a riot it is still not incitement to riot because there is nothing in the statement, "Islam is BS" that instructs or encourages anyone to participate in a riot.

What I cannot do is to talk to real Egyptians in Cairo and say, "Let's start smashing windows. Who's with me?"

You have stated your opinion that the film has no point of view beyond incitement to riot. Media for Christ (the production company name) may have a different view. Perhaps one religion saying another religion sucks is seeking to buttress their message that their religion is the only true path to god and the other religion is false. And if that isn't protected speech then nothing is.

It is established US law that a group of Nazis holding a march in Skokie, Illinois, a town full of holocaust survivors at the time, is not incitement to riot. The fact that the Nazis were plainly doing so to upset Jews was still not sufficient to say that saying, "Nazism is cool," is not an expressive act.

Criticizing a religion in a video is the very heart of expressive speech of the sort described in the US code as not being incitement to riot. It is doubly protected, both insofar as it is protected speech and since any sanction of it would be subject to strict scrutiny as potential establishment of religion.