- May 8, 2002
- Reaction score
- Alexandria, LA
The contention that speech inciting violence and lawlessness cannot be regulated is a legacy not of the Constitution but of the Warren Court, which held in Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969) that government could not proscribe advocacy of the use of force (or of other violations of law) “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (emphasis added).There is no reason why the current Supreme Court could not reconsider whether Brandenberg is faithful to the original understanding of the First Amendment.There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. [emphasis added]
And always be skeptical of any story coming out of a New Hampshire newspaper, especially partial quotes from a speech by a prominent Republican.
We've been seeing "Death to America" for nearly 30 years now. I still don't see how this is really any different.Not the content, the worldwide distribution through the Internet as part of an overall strategy to discredit the United States.
Did you happen to read the latest letter to the American public from the president of Iran today? Apparently, he watches Comedy Central and reads DailyKos.