View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 01-28-2021, 12:33 PM
GetAClue's Avatar
GetAClue GetAClue is offline
PW Enlightenment
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,052
Thanks: 13,423
Thanked 9,882 Times in 5,612 Posts
Default Re: Should White Supremist violent speech be covered by the 1st amendment?

Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
Free speech means the government cannot make laws against what you say as criticism, for one. Threatening anybody or calling for their harm or death, or disturbing the peace, or calling for disturbing the peace, is not free speech. Those are threats, and cannot be taken as free speech.
Intentionally calling for violence of any sort with a reasonable expectation that the intended audience will carry it out, is a crime. However, it is a very high hurdle for the state to prove.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

A lie doesn't become truth, a wrong doesn't become right, and Evil doesn't become good, just because it is accepted by the majority. - Booker T Washington
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post: