Posted on 08/14/2017 9:23:31 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Actually, white nationalist speech is protected under the First Amendment, as is all “hate speech,” because there’s no such thing as “hate speech” in U.S. constitutional jurisprudence. How many primers on free-speech law need to be posted on the Internet before people absorb this very basic fact? I’m less annoyed at Patrisse Cullors, who’s obviously pushing this lie as part of a political agenda, than I am at Katy Tur, who views her profession through a heroic lens and is ostensibly there to fact-check. If someone’s spouting misinformation about the First Amendment (of all things) right in front of you, the journamalistical thing to do might be to kindly correct the record for the benefit of your audience. Does Tur not know basic 1A law despite the fact that her job depends on it? Or is she giving Cullors a pass because she supports her agenda?
Speaking of novel interpretations of First Amendment law, Hugh Hewitt has a corker of an idea about what went down in Charlottesville this weekend:
All law students taking a First Amendment course, or even a constitutional law survey course, learn the rule of Brandenburg v. Ohio, a case that grew out of a 1964 Ku Klux Klan rally near Cincinnati. The defendant, Clarence Brandenburg, was convicted under a Buckeye State statute aimed originally at criminalizing communist conduct. Five years later, when the case found its way to the Supreme Court, the per curiam opinion struck down the Ohio law, holding “that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”…
From far away in California, and after a day of air travel during which I observed the events in Charlottesville only in bits and pieces, in snatches online and two minute reports from gates, it seems to me that a great number of people are at risk of being charged with felony homicide beyond the driver of the car that killed one person during Saturday’s protests. Anyone who incited the driver, indeed anyone whose actions obliged the state troopers to be airborne in defense of the public’s safety, should lawyer up.
“Lots of people should be charged if they contributed to the mayhem that led to these deaths,” Hewitt argues. That’s … quite an expansive concept of “incitement” with potentially draconian consequences. A traditional example of incitement is when a speaker is whipping up a mob that’s assembled against some poor bastard and says, e.g., “Let’s lynch him!” Even if the speaker doesn’t participate in the lynching, he can be charged criminally under the Brandenburg test that Hewitt cites since his advocacy was aimed at inciting imminent lawless action and was likely to produce it. The First Amendment won’t protect him.
As I read Hewitt, he wants to extend that exception to virtually anyone who participated in the protests — or counter-protests! — in Charlottesville on Saturday regardless of anything specific that they might have said. He’s not drawing the line at someone whispering in James Fields’s ear that he should take out a bunch of progressives with his car. A neo-Nazi/antifa showdown contains a high enough risk of violence, he seems to be saying, that participating and saying anything that raises the antagonism between the groups may qualify as incitement — and, by extension, felony murder due to Fields’s actions. Imagine showing up at a rally to yell F-bombs at some Nazis, watching a bunch of people get run over by a crazed white supremacist, and then finding yourself facing a murder charge. Or, to take a harder example, imagine being a white nationalist who attends the rally with every intention of behaving peacefully and hoping that everyone else behaves that way too. Should that guy face a murder charge for Fields’s actions? Does it matter if he was shouting expletives at antifa? The whole point of the Brandenburg test is to make the circumstances under which someone can be legally charged with incitement very narrow. This doesn’t feel narrow. In practice, it would might amount to a de facto hate-speech exception to the First Amendment. If you’re spouting “hate” around someone who shares your attitude and goes on to commit a crime, you’re doing hard time potentially.
I don’t know what to make of the idea that people might be charged for the two police officers’ deaths in the helicopter crash either. The crash was an accident, as far as we know. They were flying around doing crowd control, watching for violence on the ground. How would you begin to go about figuring out who’s guilty of incitement and who’s not in a helicopter crash? If participants are on the hook for felony murder whenever they attend a protest that’s opposed by counter-protesters, raising the risk of violence, I don’t know how anyone could ever safely attend on either side. By showing up you’d be gambling your liberty on the hope that no crimes are committed by anyone else in attendance, whether you have anything to do with them or not.
Here’s the clip via the Free Beacon.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Then neither is neither is Black Nationalist speech, you racists morons.
...says the black nationalist.
They think if they keep repeating this lie, eventually a judge will make it true. And they’re probably right.
Is this one of the judges Obama appointed?
I really don’t think most people understand how dangerous these radicals are.
They’ll say and do anything to keep the hate burning. Too many blacks are walking away from the plantation. Stoking base passions will bring them back. It’s a very subtle mind fu**.
What judge?
Hewitt is *such* a cuck.
"...I really don't think most people understand how dangerous these radicals are..."
It’s already true in practice - apparently in Charlottesville, the leftist thugs were given free rein to attack and harass and douse rally-goers with chemical sprays, and did not face arrest or detention from the local cops. And like they say, ultimately, “the law is what you can get away with.”
Pure insanity
Doesn’t understand the constitution
the BLM needs to educate themselves. Hate speech has been upheld by the Supremes five or six times as allowed under Freedom of Speech, an Inalienable Right, protected by the First Amendment.
They’re not exactly run by rocket surgeons.
I doubt they’re all that interested in the letter of the law. They’ll do what they can get away with, and when city AND state governments in places like Virginia are giving orders for their officers to “stand down,” they can get away with quite a lot. And they’ll continue to get away with it as long as no one stops them. Does Sessions have the courage to be the one who does?
The plan was for Hillary to have us disarmed before they started attacking the first Amendment. The useful idiots are going to be cannon fodder if they continue on with this plan without taking our ability to defend ourselves.
Geeze, what people don’t know never fails to surprise me, or else it’s just his communist stripes!
You have to understand that Katy Tur has swallowed gallons of Keith Olbersturmfuhrermann's "man essence", precipitating a toxic stupidity event...
Don’t listen to Hewitt the twit anymore (had to add that for fun), and who the hell is this Allahpundit guy? Is he a Muslim? Hey Twit Hugh, still mocking your cancer survivor producer?
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.