Under the “hate speech” laws, direct threats against a person, or a call for action against a person which could lead to injury, property damage or death is “actionable” by the police.
It’s all in the “details” of what was said, how it was said, and under what circumstances (drunk as opposed to sober, holding a weapon in one’s hand while making the threat - several of the last mass shootings had the perp holding weapons, etc).
There might also be some state laws that define an “imminent threat” that could be used for preemptive law enforcement action.
Brandenburg was a terrible decision on its face. Believe it was the Warren Court which did more to gut our internal security/crime laws than any other court in US history (and I’m not talking about the Miranda decision, which was reasonable).
Under Brandenburg, you literally have to wait until someone throws a firebomb into your house or car on property before they can be detained, NOT PREVENTED. Otherwise all the Antifa punks in Portland, Seattle, DC, Berkeley, would have been arrested as soon as they raised their arms with weapons in them.
This also gives the enemy the advantage of NOT being shot in the motion of throwing something, and then being classified as “unarmed”.
Time for Brandenburg to be revisited, overturned, and the laws rewritten to protect the victim, not the criminal.
There is no such thing, except in Europe, where they jail people for saying Muhammad is a pedophile, or other statements that are part of mainstream discourse amongst conservatives here in the United States.
direct threats against a person, or a call for action against a person which could lead to injury, property damage or death is “actionable” by the police.
This is different from "hate speech," and yes, direct threats at an individual are probably going to bring you into the realm of "reasonable imminent threat," but that didn't happen here anyway. The Daily Stormer wrote no threats to her, warned readers not to threaten her, and WAPO doesn't even quote any threats directed at her. Only one quote saying that she "should" have died in the Holocaust. That's different from "I'm going to stick you in a gas chamber."
Under Brandenburg, you literally have to wait until someone throws a firebomb into your house or car on property before they can be detained, NOT PREVENTED. Otherwise all the Antifa punks in Portland, Seattle, DC, Berkeley, would have been arrested as soon as they raised their arms with weapons in them.
We have a little something called the Second Amendment. This way you can still have patriots who can go around calling for an armed insurrection against a tyrannical government who can't be legally arrested for it while at the same time having a means to defend yourself from the Commies doing the same thing outside your home or outside of a government building.
It's not smart policy to depend on the state to define what is and isn't acceptable speech, and it is definitely stupid to depend on the government to defend you from outside threats, instead expecting the government to infringe the first amendment to protect your unwillingness to utilize the second amendment.
Time for Brandenburg to be revisited, overturned, and the laws rewritten to protect the victim, not the criminal.
You don't really believe that because you are not considering what the Founding Fathers would have looked like to citizens still enamored with the musty parchments and authority of the British.