The anti-riot act was passed in the sixties and they're deciding this is unconstitutional overreach NOW? When student activists or leftists were peacefully protesting they got prosecuted under...
The anti-riot act was passed in the sixties and they're deciding this is unconstitutional overreach NOW?
When student activists or leftists were peacefully protesting they got prosecuted under this law. When it was overturned on appeal it was on grounds of insufficient evidence, not constitutionality concerns. Yet when neo-Nazis are explicitly advocating for violence suddenly we hear paeans about how we have to protect speech we detest. What a pile of horseshit. This doesn't buttress the right to free speech, it turns it into a farce and only guarantees its erosion over the long term.
this is another interesting example of how far reaching some of the protections of the first amendment are, at least as interpreted by courts:
this is another interesting example of how far reaching some of the protections of the first amendment are, at least as interpreted by courts:
In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney said the statute the men were charged under, the Anti-Riot Act, is “unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.”
“It is easy to champion free speech when it advocates a viewpoint with which we agree. It is much harder when the speech promotes ideas that we find abhorrent. But an essential function of free speech is to invite dispute,” wrote Carney in his ruling.
[...]
Eason’s attorney John McNicholas said the charges the men faced – conspiracy to commit rioting and travel or use of interstate commerce with intent to riot – did not pertain to the actual physical violence that took place in Berkeley. That rally spiraled into a melee, but McNicholas said the indictment focused on conversations the men had on phones, computers and on the drive to Northern California.
This interpretation is absolute madness. Even for the most staunch Oiginalists, it's very obvious from historical documents that this was not the intention of the First Amendment. For all us...
This interpretation is absolute madness. Even for the most staunch Oiginalists, it's very obvious from historical documents that this was not the intention of the First Amendment. For all us others, it's obvious by the implications of the interpretations that this cannot be what the First Amendment means.
"Yeah we talked about rioting and getting together with the intent to have a riot, but that was just locker-room talk! It's completely coincidental that the rally turned into a brawl! We didn't plan that, nope not at all!"
The word is more powerful than the sword. Jurisprudence should at least make it possible to be held to account for ones words.
if i had to guess, you have the imminent lawless action standard, which is how we judge all potentially violent speech, to thank for this. that holds that unless there is both a clear statement of...
For all us others, it's obvious by the implications of the interpretations that this cannot be what the First Amendment means.
"Yeah we talked about rioting and getting together with the intent to have a riot, but that was just locker-room talk! It's completely coincidental that the rally turned into a brawl! We didn't plan that, nope not at all!"
The word is more powerful than the sword. Jurisprudence should at least make it possible to be held to account for ones words.
if i had to guess, you have the imminent lawless action standard, which is how we judge all potentially violent speech, to thank for this. that holds that unless there is both a clear statement of lawlessness and that such statements have a likely chance of producing lawless actions in the immediate future, it's protected speech; this is of course basically a judgment call most of the time, and i'm pretty sure if california really wanted to (but which they're not going to do, i assume, because it's just more trouble than it's worth) they could take this to the supreme court because it's seemingly pretty flimsy if you apply it here.
The anti-riot act was passed in the sixties and they're deciding this is unconstitutional overreach NOW?
When student activists or leftists were peacefully protesting they got prosecuted under this law. When it was overturned on appeal it was on grounds of insufficient evidence, not constitutionality concerns. Yet when neo-Nazis are explicitly advocating for violence suddenly we hear paeans about how we have to protect speech we detest. What a pile of horseshit. This doesn't buttress the right to free speech, it turns it into a farce and only guarantees its erosion over the long term.
this is another interesting example of how far reaching some of the protections of the first amendment are, at least as interpreted by courts:
This interpretation is absolute madness. Even for the most staunch Oiginalists, it's very obvious from historical documents that this was not the intention of the First Amendment. For all us others, it's obvious by the implications of the interpretations that this cannot be what the First Amendment means.
"Yeah we talked about rioting and getting together with the intent to have a riot, but that was just locker-room talk! It's completely coincidental that the rally turned into a brawl! We didn't plan that, nope not at all!"
The word is more powerful than the sword. Jurisprudence should at least make it possible to be held to account for ones words.
if i had to guess, you have the imminent lawless action standard, which is how we judge all potentially violent speech, to thank for this. that holds that unless there is both a clear statement of lawlessness and that such statements have a likely chance of producing lawless actions in the immediate future, it's protected speech; this is of course basically a judgment call most of the time, and i'm pretty sure if california really wanted to (but which they're not going to do, i assume, because it's just more trouble than it's worth) they could take this to the supreme court because it's seemingly pretty flimsy if you apply it here.