Posted on 11/17/2018 3:00:42 PM PST by NRx
Incorrect. A call to action is not freedom of expression. He could say any nasty thing that comes into his head but once he incites others and asks them to ACT upon his incitement it becomes action and not speech.
This is the type of decision that'll be looked back upon-if there's any freedom in this country a century now, if it even exists, with shame, just like Schenk.
What you aren’t understanding is that he called for an ACTION with the intent to do harm. That is not freedom of expression or speech.
So you see that as a "call for action," which is not illegal, FWIW.
Tell me, what do you think this is:
Donald Trump encouraged supporters to rough up potential protesters Monday at his final pre-Iowa caucus rally. "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them," Trump said after warning of possible rabble-rousers.
"I'll pay the legal fees," he added. This came before Trump told the crowd that "You're going to say please please Mr. President, we're winning too much" and reminding the crowd that Vladimir Putin had called him a "genius."
They are both a call for action that is harmful, one mental harm and one physical harm. Neither are covered by free speech.
“Mental” harm? You’ve got to be kidding me!?
You have a nice evening.
The right to free speech is absolute. Facing the consequences for your speech is what the ‘left’ wants removed.
Mental harm is not a good place to start if you want to change up the meaning of the first amendment. It leads straight to the gulag for violating people's "safe spaces" because you maybe mentioned the name of Jesus Christ.
Bunk. Speech directing others to harm or harrass anyone is NOT Freedom of Speech. Get a grip.
Directions to "harm" are not what happened here, and one man's "harrassment" is another man's "call your senators and demand action now!"
Yes. It most certainly is. He organized a harassment campaign. That is not freedom of speech. It was a direct call to action.
But by all means, you keep making excuses for him. It says a lot.
Goodnight.
Pornography? Solicitation to commit a crime? Slander? Libel? Sedition?
Ummm... no.
No right is absolute and anyone who thinks they are needs to have their hand held while being kept far from the adult beverages.
I don't really understand why you're taking this so emotionally. The problems with your view, especially in relation to what it would imply to a website like Free Republic, should be self-evident.
You do not infringe the First Amendment to protect someone, especially a public person as opposed to a private person, from nasty phone calls.
Perhaps you misunderstood my comment.
You have the right to free speech. If you commit a crime with your free speech, you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, etc.
IIRC, the FREE SPEECH part of the Constitution refers to the right of the people and the media to SPEAK OUT against the government. It was never meant to regulate personal conversations.
Correct except over time, “free speech” was limited, sometimes severely, esp. during the Civil War and WW1 (I’ve been reading FBI and military Intelligence reports from WW1 regarding who was arrested and convicted under the Alien and Sedition Acts as well as the Espionage Act of 1916/17/18 amended.
The same thing happened during the Palmer Raids in the 1920’s esp. regarding illegal aliens or communist/Marxist agitators.
This again happened to a lesser degree in WW2.
The unfortunate thing was that the concept of “hate speech” in the form of advocating mob action was never successfully used against the KKK and its affiliates for the most part, at least not until the 1965 raids and arrests.
The Left understood this weakness in American “advocacy” laws esp. regarding the Communists, and exploited it to the nth degree, including the Chicago 7 trial and the earlier New Haven Black Panther Party murder conspiracy trial re Alex Rackley. I spend a little time with the Communist Party and supporting lawyers for the Chicago 7 trial (esp. Kunstler, Kinoy, etc), and they knew how to “advocate” violence by using certain code words, and as I said in my congressional testimony on the subject, they knew how to agitate a mob into motion, give it some guidance targets, and set it free. Then they stepped back into the shadows and let SDS/Weathermen, Black Panther Party and Progressive Labor Party do their dirty work.
I was there in DC watching all this happen. The recent Antifa street mobs operated the same way and so far prosectutions have been minimal to dismal because the police never understood how they were organized and trained in violence, plus the gutless political leaders of Portland, Seattle, DC, etc. often told the police to “stand down” or not to enforce the law about violent parades, etc.
While “hate speech” is not necessarily “actionable speech” (I used the wrong word, “speech” in stead of “hate crimes”), it can be a precursor to violent, unlawful action, by proxy and time proximity (which the courts often let slid, which leads to the dismissal of charges or not guilty verdicts).
In terms of “national and internal security, the “law” is an ass (or a whole herd of asses, just as many judges are). If you don’t know how the enemy operates, thinks, uses its ideology as a weapon of war (verbal, in print, for indoctrination etc)., then you will lose the war.
We saw this in Vietnam (where I was) as well as on the homefront. If you ever find a book by Edward Hunter on brainwashing, read it. Ed put the concepts of communist indoctrination and tactics out there for all to see (he was working for the CIA and Air Force during the Korean War).
If you want another good book, re George Orwell’s “1984” and “Animal Farm” to understand “newspeak” and “peacespeak”, etc.
Words are as powerful as swords, and sometimes more so. Words can incite a mob or people to violence and the speakers never had to fire a single bullet to have it happen and succeed.
>
‘Free speech’ was intended to allow unfettered criticism of the government, right up to the point of advocating violence. Many other kinds of speech may be and are prohibited. The idea that the original intent of the Founders was that pornography or ‘fighting words’ were covered by ‘freedom of speech’ is beyond ignorant.
>
Tar & feathering are far from non-violent, no?
Were the calls leading up to, into and through, the Battle of Athens ‘free speech’?
Laws are written based on generalities. The fact that the Founders included the Second Amendment and sought to limit government is enough to understand that they approved of action by the people in unusual situations if it was necessary.
And the Founders did acknowledge moral law higher than the state’s positive law.
I’m sure threatening someone is part of freedom of speech, however, nobody said there wouldn’t be consequences for such speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.