Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used, and that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely
Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."
So using the courts standard it's a toss up as you could argue either way and is very subjective. However the comment was seriously in the wrong and needs some kind of negative action.
"There are very few problems that cannot be solved by the suitable application of photon torpedoes
Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used, and that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely
Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."
So using the courts standard it's a toss up as you could argue either way and is very subjective. However the comment was seriously in the wrong and needs some kind of negative action.
I think New York Penal - Article 490 - § 490.20 covers the situation perfectly. See page 1.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
The only question now is whether or not he'll be having a nice long chat with the Secret Service.
Did Ted Nugent ever have his chat with them. If nothing happened to him there's a good chance nothing will happ to this schmuck.
Edit yeah nothing happened
"There are very few problems that cannot be solved by the suitable application of photon torpedoes
The only question now is whether or not he'll be having a nice long chat with the Secret Service.
Did Ted Nugent ever have his chat with them. If nothing happened to him there's a good chance nothing will happ to this schmuck.
Edit yeah nothing happened
The difference is Nugent didn't exactly call for any sort of specific act of violence. The guy's an idiot but what he did is a far cry from "Let's go throw some acid on some senators."
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
The only question now is whether or not he'll be having a nice long chat with the Secret Service.
Why? The Secret Services handles the President and his immediate family, if you threaten a Representative or Senator the only people talking to you will be the FBI.
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
The only question now is whether or not he'll be having a nice long chat with the Secret Service.
Why? The Secret Services handles the President and his immediate family, if you threaten a Representative or Senator the only people talking to you will be the FBI.
Whoever's in charge of handling that sort of investigation then.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
General Zod wrote:
Whoever's in charge of handling that sort of investigation then.
No specific threat was made against anyone so yes the chances of him talking to anyone are zero.
I can shout Death to Americans on national TV and nothing will happen to me, but if I shout Death to Bob from Ceder Rapids! I might get a talking to.
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
General Zod wrote:
I dunno, "Democratic female senators" is fairly specific, it's not like there's a whole lot of those.
Still not specific enough
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
There are currently twelve Democratic female senators. That's a small enough group that someone could make a death threat against all of them, but whether this should be interpreted that way, I don't know.
