As we watch the court cases regarding the
attempted coup of Jan 6th, and listen to the “free speech” prattling’s
of Conservatives who are appalled that private industry isn’t obligated to
up-hold the same First Amendment purism as the government (meaning Donald Trump’s
Facebook and Twitter bans), it would be useful to consider what restrictions on
your free speech the government actually endorses.
The key case is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), a
landmark decision that held that inflammatory speech cannot be legitimately
criminalized unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing
imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
It is important to remember that Brandenburg was a Liberal decision, radically expanding
your protection from finding that your speech was criminalized as compared to the
previous standards.
Now, a few quotes from the on-going court
cases against the participants in the failed Coup. These quotes all concern Donald
Trump’s speech, before, during, and even now:
“It’s not as if the effort by some political leaders and media
figures to stoke this sort of anger has abated in any way, Isn’t it fair to say
that the same political issues and the same political concerns are being pumped
out into the airways on a daily basis?”
Judge Amy Berman Jackson
“The Court
is not convinced that dissatisfaction and concern about the legitimacy of the
election results has dissipated for all Americans. Former President Donald J.
Trump continues to make forceful public comments about the ‘stolen election,’
chastising individuals who did not reject the supposedly illegitimate results
that put the current administration in place … The unfounded allegations are
out there, and they’re being made constantly by the former President.”
Judge
Emmett Sullivan
“The defendant is of course entitled to his political preferences. But
given his prior acts of traveling across the country with weapons to ‘stop the
steal’ and interfering with the peaceful transition of power on behalf of his
idol and his idol’s continued inflammatory rhetoric about a stolen election,
the defendant continues to pose a concrete and articulable threat to the
community.”
Prosecutors
in the case against Nathaniel DeGrave
Comments
Post a Comment