Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Ocelot II

(130,955 posts)

4. No.

Reply to Sogo (Original post)

Tue Mar 7, 2023, 04:19 PM

Mar 2023

Brandenburg v. Ohio says the First Amendment protects any speech that doesn't meet the test of being intended to incite imminent lawless action. In other words, the incitement has to be specific and immediately meant to cause an unlawful act. What Fox does might be considered stochastic terrorism, but it lacks the specificity needed to take it outside the coverage of the First Amendment.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

19 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I don't know how it would be carried out, but couldn't there be a cease and desist order [View all] Sogo Mar 2023 OP

No. WhiskeyGrinder Mar 2023 #1

SMH inthewind21 Mar 2023 #2

There is nothing criminal about lying to the public. Chainfire Mar 2023 #3

To me, it's voter fraud... defrauding the voting public. Karadeniz Mar 2023 #18

The First Amendment is a double edged sword. Chainfire Mar 2023 #19

No. Ocelot II Mar 2023 #4

But Trump's speech prior to the Trump Insurrection does indeed meet the test. lees1975 Mar 2023 #8

Not really Zeitghost Mar 2023 #9

The OP's question is about statements made by Fox News, Ocelot II Mar 2023 #11

Thank you for your detailed answer, as opposed Sogo Mar 2023 #12

i think there should be a class action lawsuit samnsara Mar 2023 #5

Based on what legal theory? Ocelot II Mar 2023 #6

I gotta ask one question here, if you would. bluestarone Mar 2023 #14

That would be a tough case, since the obvious defense would be Ocelot II Mar 2023 #16

TY! bluestarone Mar 2023 #17

No DetroitLegalBeagle Mar 2023 #7

No, there is no loophole to the First Amendment that will allow you to suppress speech tritsofme Mar 2023 #10

It's not that I just "don't like" it; Sogo Mar 2023 #13

I wonder if those canetoad Mar 2023 #15