Legal I. Q test! Are you allowed to incite violence under the first amendment?

[Juxtapose]

Yes or no. The answer will be revealed in 24 hours.

[BoopBoopBeep]

The honest answer is "it depends." Brandenburg v. Ohio is a historic judgment (and still the controlling law) by the United States Supreme Court that interprets the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the government cannot punish incendiary speech unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" Specifically, the Court overturned Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, which broadly barred the mere endorsement of violence.

"Imminent" here is a gradient that all justices/jurors may not agree on. The subesequent Brandenburg test is three pronged, looking at the totality of intent to speak, imminence of lawlessness, and likelihood of lawlessness.

I think there are certain assumptions under Brandenburg that aren't as in touch with society today. Online hate-speech websites and terrorist recruitment sites, along with the radicalization of youth to a level not really seen 50 years ago may bring about changes in our lifetime (haha... well... you know...) to this standard, but so far the Supreme Court really hasn't seemed all that hard pressed to take up any cases challenging it.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

There’s a lot of case law surrounding it and the actual answer is a little nuanced.

The general answer is no. People have been prosecuted at a high level for inciting violence. However there is a line in the sand and you actually get plenty of room to say your piece.

the verbiage the Supreme Court used was something along the lines of inciting a crowd to lawless action. And it’s not enough to simply talk about it, the specifics must be laid out and it must be effective.

I’m quoting case law from decades ago and I would not be surprised to learn it is more strict now.

You should know a little about how this is enforced before you go around telling people you want to do someone to do some crazy shit.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

I wouldn't think so.

[Billlewis]

I think that's a loaded question, of sorts, the answer to which hinges to a considerable degree on which of the two major political parties the offender belongs to, or is reported to belong to. Remember, we have two tiered system of justice and accompanying appellate system today. If any of our readers have ever been curious about how the old Soviet Union functioned, it was markedly similar to our current third world inspired society.

[nolabels]

Without looking, I'm saying no, using the example of it being unlawful to sound an untruthful cry of "fire" in a crowded theater, as the resulting chaos could easily cause harm to people.

[OtterMan68]

Under a strict literal interpretation, yes, but I think the Supreme Court disagrees. Trump once told his supporters at a rally to physically attack hecklers, and nothing happened to him.

If someone leading a rally told his supporters to "kill that cop!" and points to a cop, would it matter if nothing happened to the cop, or would he be charged regardless?

Lots of gray area. If someone said we need to shoot people illegally crossing the border, is that protect speech?

[Juxtapose]

in my opinion if you literally incite violence it should be illegal unless you're saying something like: "I want you to kill whoever kills me" or the like.

[OtterMan68]

so if someone on Twitter (X) says "shoot all people illegally crossing the border" and one of his followers goes to the border and murders someone who crosses the border, the person who sent the tweet should be prosecuted?

[Juxtapose]

If a direct link can be made then absolutely. They incited them to commit violence.

I suspect it's REALLY REALLY HARD to prove incitement now because it's been abused to hell and back.

[Juxtapose]

It should be hard but come on.. "FINAL SOLUTION" with that imagery is extremely blatant.

[AviatorTom]

No. The first amendment does not allow violence

[DrPepper12]

No. Comes under the "fighting words" doctrine as well as "time, manner and place" restrictions too.

[BetaBucks]

Not directly. It's one of the exclusions the SCOTUS ruled on back in the day.

[BetaBucks]

Adding in a caveat that self defense or marital arts aren't considered violence in this context. It would have to be illegal violence.

[exitseven]

I think there is someting that says you cannot create violence or yell FIRE in a crowded theater.

[RavVid]

US constitution allows you guy to assemble to petition gov't. So I would say that allows political protests. It s silent on whether firing on people is free speech.

[ProbablyClueless]

In general, no. But let's face it; some messages get a lot more leniency than others.

[NathanDavis]

the Supreme Court just ruled that businesses can sell you "boneless" food, with bones in it...

[CaptainSmartass]

I'm pretty sure you're not.

Simples...

[Skinhead-1979]

This one I cannot answer... I am not familiar enough with all the amendments in the US to forma good 'opinion' about them.

[DJB72]

Questions like this are why I'm glad I'm not American

[Juxtapose]

Why?

[DJB72]

Don't have to worry about amendments...

[Juxtapose]

You always have to worry about interpretation of legal text though.

[shortster]

Nope. But you can use violent language if you aren't specific. Though finding the line between the two is best avoided as much as possible.

[Chazmatazz269]

Nope

[Dongie]

No..