Free Speech? Or Incitement to Violence?

[redqueen]

Poll question: Free Speech? Or Incitement to Violence?

You decide:

Fox's New Show "Red Eye" Jokes Twice About "Killing Liberals"
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/02/09/foxs_new_show_red_eye_jokes_twice_about_killing_liberals.php

Fresno Councilman: 'Use Dirty Bomb to Kill Liberals'
http://www.freedom2008.com/reader/archives/001566.html

D'Souza and the Violent Right
In his newest book, The Enemy at Home, Republican ideologue Dinesh D'Souza calmly explains that liberals in America caused 9/11, whereupon he recommends that we do to liberals what we are doing to terrorists: fight a war against them.

While he never comes right out and says that Americans should kill liberals, D'Souza's book shuttles his reader swiftly to that conclusion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/dsouza-and-the-violent-r_b_42464.html



(more at link)
http://www.irregulartimes.com/rightwingstuffviolence.html

This hue and cry now that you're starting to hear from the environmentalists, the Green Nazis: "We need have a dialogue. We need to sit down and understand each other." Don't. We need to finish them off and make sure they don't have babies.
http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2004/10/rightwing_radio.html


Other stuff this kind of scum is saying about people they don't like:
http://www.adl.org/NR/exeres/D7BECD3A-D17C-48ED-9BA6-5A109D1125FA,DB7611A2-02CD-43AF-8147-649E26813571,frameless.htm

Feel free to add other examples...

[BOSSHOG]

1. And we wonder why conservatives idolize reagan

The senile, talentless puke did away with the fairness doctrine.

Two things in the universe that are true:

- Conservatives fear the fairness doctrine
- Conservatives fear swearing to tell the truth

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. Good work

I was looking into Coulter and Savage quotes
for suggesting violence earlier against liberals.

I found a few and will post them later.

[redqueen]

3. Thanks! (nt)

:hi:

[sui generis]

4. it's free speech - "hyperbole"

but I also think one should be licensed to have free speech by more than merely being born in America. Like, perhaps a very simple citizenship test, starting with basic definitions of humaneness and humanity, a renewable registration fee, a minimum IQ score and a one re-take limit.

Because all those ugly humans would be good for after that is biodiesel.

[baldguy]

7. Then bin Laden's videos are also "free speech"

[sui generis]

9. afraid of words. not a good liberal place to be.

Osama Bin Laden is not relevant to this conversation.

Being scared of words is what conservatives do.

[redqueen]

10. No one is scared of the words themselves.

It's the actions the words are intended to inspire.

[sui generis]

13. not being completely contrarian Red, but

if we're going to make a case for it, we have to have a standard for making a case.

I do agree, there is a boundary that can be crossed, but I'm at a loss to define it concisely. "I'll know it when I see it" is a very dangerous path; as we have collectively discovered getting arrested for wearing "inciteful" peace sign t-shirts at the malls, getting arrested at political rallies, denied a place on parade routes for our political party affiliations and being treated as national security threats for having a bumper sticker.

We have to have wide parameters or eventually any special rule we can dream up will be used against us in turn.

[aspergris]

22. case law defines the boundary pursuant to judicial review

of the constitution.

Redqueen is clearly not considering either.

I have yet to see ONE example of criminally actionable speech despite the protestations otherwards.

Iow, all sound and fury signifying jack...

[redqueen]

24. A peace sign t-shirt is in no way analogous to saying things like "we need to finish them off'

But I see you have someone to agree with, so I'll leave y'all to it. :hi:

[aspergris]

27. He has the constitution

Apparently you find that pesky and/or irrelevant.

Well at least bush agrees with ya. It's only a piece of paper, right?

[aspergris]

16. and i have yet to see one example

That would criminally actionable. But again, people are not interested in constitutional rights and protections. After a tragedy like this, everybody wants many pounds of flesh and will use any excuse to use authoritarianism to restrict rights

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baldguy]

32. Political speech, like religious speech, has special protections in the Constitution.

Speech which incites or promotes violence does not.

[aspergris]

33. and again

CITE ONE EXAMPLE, and I will show you via case law why you are wrong.

have you READ the case law on incitement? i strongly doubt it.

like i said, i've testified in scores of cases involving threats, witness intimidation, and other exceptions to free speech. so, i have a pretty good idea of what is free speech, and what is criminal. and NOTHING i have seen quoted even remotely meets the criteria of criminality. note that neither did the angela davis speech I attended where she said "kill the rich". nor did bell hooks writing that she was in a killing rage.

again, this is the case law.

saying "liberals suck. They should all be killed" on a radio show is NOT a criminal act. again, give me a quote, and I will show you the relevant case law as to why it's NOT criminal.

[aspergris]

14. bingo

I find it sad that so many people who are so eager to claim this is criminal stuff, haven't spent the time to study constitutional case law that CLEARLY protects such speech.

Under a LIBERAL court I might.

[redqueen]

21. You find it sad that average Americans don't study case laws before forming opinions?

Heh... that's funny.


By the way, you forgot the word "add". :hi:

[aspergris]

23. I find it sad

that people who claim to know that this speech is criminally actionable don't actually understand the law or the constitution. yes i do.

What constitutes your garden variety assault, robbery, etc. is not complex enough to require anything more than a cursory knowledge of the generic law ...

iow, you take somebody's money from their person via force - that's robbery.

you punch somebody in the face, other than several legal justifications - that's assault

otoh, the line between free speech, the frigging FIRST and thus arguably MOST IMPORTANT freedom recognized by the constitution, and INCITEMENT is a MUCH more complex issue.

so yes. before ya spout, it behooves you to understand what IS and ISN'T criminal incitement.

education. It's what's for dinner

[redqueen]

25. "Claim to know"? Do you have reading comprehension problems? (nt)

[DBoon]

8. It's free speech until people are killed

Julius Streicher ran Der Sturmer, spreading anti-semitic vitrol in Germany during the 1920s and 1930s.

He was closely associated with Hitler's reich, correctly realizing that his paper helped make it possible.

He was hung as a criminal at Nuremberg for that same reason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher

[AllieB]

11. With free speech comes responsibility.

Don't spew hateful venom unless you're prepared for the consequences.

I'm still waiting for the media and radio hatemongers that incited racism and genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia. The media played a huge role in both instances.

[Quantess]

5. Don't even THINK of suggesting something similar about our prezdumbent.

Unless you might like a stay in Gitmo.

[DBoon]

6. This is a political movement that idolizes Pinochet, Franco, and Joe McCarthy

Look at the roots of the modern conservative movement. Look at the adulation given to Franco and McCarthy in National Review. Look at how a right wing hero like Jesse Helms supports Pinochet and Roberto D'Aubuisson

Do you think murdering their political opponents is something they would only do in Latin America?

Do you think the people who trained and financed death squads for decades have any moral reservations about bringing them home?

[AllieB]

12. Did you read 'The Shock Doctrine'?

Your comments reflect the themes in Naomi Klein's book.

[onenote]

15. wow. its sad to see how little respect or knowledge of the first amendment some people have.

In the US, the crime of "incitement" to the extent it exists, is very narrow, thanks to some very smart and progressive justices of the Supreme Court, including William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, Hugo Black etc, all of whom participated in the unanimous decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, where the conviction of a KKK leader for "advocacy" of violence was overturned. The court made it clear that in order constitute a criminal act, speech must be directed to inciting or producing "imminent" lawless action and must be "likely" to incite or produce such action. Given that limpballs has millions of listeners, the fact that one occasionally goes off his rocker (and, by the way, the idea that the knoxville shooter is rushbot is utter speculation as far as I know) hardly is evidence that rush's ravings are directed to producing imminent lawless action or likely to have that effect.

Rush is a big fat idiot, but I'd rather put up with him than have the First Amendment eviscerated

[redqueen]

17. None of the examples above are from Rush. Did you read any?

Are you only interested in discussing Rush?

[onenote]

26. none of them could be the subject of a constitutional prosecution

The statements made by the KKK at a rally that were the subject of the prosecution in Brandenburg were no less offensive than the statements in the links you provided: "Bury the n******rs" was one. "There might have to be some revegeance (sic) taken" against blacks. "We intend to do our part". Keep in mind that these statements were made by Klansmen in full regalia openly displaying shotuguns, pistols and other firearms at the time.

But the SCOTUS unanimously reversed their conviction. Why? Because these threats were not specific enough because they did not create the kind of clear and present danger -- the probable and imminent risk of action. Neither do the rantings in the links cited.

[aspergris]

28. I'm interested in an example of criminally actionable speech

None of which have been provided

[aspergris]

29. It's also proof positive

That there is plenty of ignorance and/or disrespect for constitutional principles at all points on the political spectrum.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Yup

there always has been a strong authoritarian element here, with little regard for the constitution and its rights. They want to jail people they don't like, and invent ways to do it.

[Dukkha]

19. It could also be interpreted as Imminent lawless action

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Imminent lawless action is a term used in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to define the limits of constitutionally protected speech. The rule overturned the decision of the earlier Schenck v. United States (1919), which had established "clear and present danger" as the constitutional limit for speech. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned.

The doctrine states that speech that will cause, or has as its purpose, "imminent lawless action" (such as a riot) does not have constitutional protection. As of 2008, "imminent lawless action" continues to be the test applied in free speech cases.

[Raskolnik]

30. No, it couldn't.

As your own source clearly demonstrates.

[onenote]

31. imminent lawless action is an even narrower standard than clear and present danger

which is why, in Brandenburg, a KKKer who, while armed, made statements like "Bury the n******rs" and "We intend to do our part" had his conviction overturned because it did not constitute the creation of imminent lawless action.

Thousands, if not millions, of rwers lap up the spew of rush and others on a daily basis. But only a handful go off their nut and actually do anything. That alone indicates that, from a constitutional analysis standpoint, there is no case to be made against rw ranters.

[mmonk]

20. You know where I stand.

;-)

[MonkeyFunk]

34. Free speech

[TexasObserver]

35. Free Speech trumps Incite to Riot

A key component of incite to riot is immediacy.

It means: "Hey, you guys go over there and burn that store down!"

[KharmaTrain]

36. The Power Of Suggestion

Years ago I studied Wilson Key and subliminal advertising...and in specific, how its used in radio. It was used to see what words or phrases or other devices would make advertising work more "effectively" (yes, to brainwash listeners to buy things)...and there's been extensive work on the subject with mixed results. While you can't reach through the radio and hypnotize someone, you sure can make an impression...and it's one that many of us are familiar with...reptition.

Think of how many jingles and ad slogans you can recite from rote...that's purposeful...it's imprinted through dozens or hundreds of impressions...and the longer the impression is made the deeper it gets. It's a game hate radio has used...as well as the GOOP for over a generation...and has, in turn, indoctrinated a generation with words that create almost a pavlovian response.

The word "librul" is a textbook example...it's been made into a cartoon by the right wing...a stereotype of many negative images and words all wrapped up in one easy, handy codeword. They've constructed strawmen and wedge issues that make it easy to trace all problems to "libruls"...and thus the word has become a perjorative...and when imprinted in the wrong head can lead to what we saw the other day.