Interesting stuff. When I entered 'Brandenburg free speech' into google the AI generated info was... The Brandenburg test is a legal test that defines the time element of the clear and present danger test, which is used to determine when speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The test was established in the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio and was applied in the 1973 case Hess v. Indiana. In Hess v. Indiana, the Supreme Court ruled that speech that is not protected by the First Amendment must lead to "imminent disorder" Surely, if someone expresses support for the idea of attacking a person or group by 'liking' a post saying it should happen that would lead to imminent disorder, wouldn't it? Or is that the point you're making?
Actually, of course, the UK warning about self incrimination has been changed from., 'You do not have to say anything. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law', to 'You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court'. I believe the other stuff about right to representation, etc. is the same.
Hmm... OK. Could it be said it might lead to disorder or that the original post might lead to disorder? Or is it the time element bit that's more relevant in that either of them might but at some point in the future? I'm just trying to figure out what the differences are between the UK law and US in this regard. Men jailed for encouraging unrest on social media ... Parlour, of Seacroft, Leeds, who called for an attack on a hotel housing refugees and asylum seekers on Facebook, became the first person to be jailed for stirring up racial hatred during the disorder. He had suffered a broken heel and was at home when he wrote the posts, which were reported to the police. Kay was convicted after he used social media to call for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set alight. The father-of-three, who pleaded guilty at Northampton Crown Court, had denied intending to stir up racial hatred, but admitted "in hindsight" some of his posts "made [him] look like an idiot".
Brandenburg Supreme Court opinion says a government can’t “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.” https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep395/usrep395444/usrep395444.pdf So “might” incite imminent lawless action is not enough.
The AI summary of Brandenburg leaves a lot out. Under that test, the speech must lead to imminent lawlessness to not be protected by the First Amendment. Just read the facts of the case and the fact that the appellant was deemed protected in the end. It's a much more rigorous test and, in fact, the vast majority of legal scholars agree that Brandenburg overruled the clear and present danger test even if it didn't explicitly state that it was doing so. Consequently, liking a shitty post under no interpretation of Brandenburg definitively leads to imminent lawlessness, and it wouldn't be prosecuted. In the example you cite, the guy actually calls for a specific violent act. But even so, I'd speculate that in the U.S. he wouldn't have been prosecuted for this because I suspect a court would have found that his FB comments wouldn't necessarily lead to imminent violence. I mean, look at the fact that Jack Smith didn't indict Trump on any incitement charges because he knew under Brandenburg it was not a slam dunk. One is just allowed a lot more leeway under U.S. free speech laws.
I thought that was likely the case and read some of the background information but it still wasn't entirely clear to me how it would work in practice. Thus the question. This is the bit I find interesting. As you say, his post wouldn't necessarily lead, imminently, to lawlessness, (including possible violence), except, of course, it contributed to the culture, (on SM and elsewhere), that DID lead to violence. It's hard to get away from the idea that the test is carried out after the fact when there HAS been lawlessness. IOW the same act, (posting on SM in this case), can have two different legal outcomes depending, NOT on the acts themselves, but on the acts of another party... and sometimes not even then. Well, that's the obvious example of course but I suspect, if you went through precisely what he said, it would be quite hard to pick out specific parts of his statement to show intent and even those that were were contradicted by some of the other parts... https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial ... Democrats have pointed to one phrase in particular as they argue that Trump incited those present to march down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol. "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he said. His defense lawyers, however, point to a different passage, in which Trump said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." They argue that his words were not a call for actual violence and lawlessness. So does the word 'fight' clearly mean fight using violence or, for example, stand your ground when law enforcement tell you to disperse. I mean, sure, that would also be lawlessness in that you're disobeying an instruction from LA but it's not violence in terms of fighting. It's arguable IOW. Also he's a politician talking to his supporters so, again, it could be said to be 'rhetorical flourish' rather than an instruction and it was that, together with the other parts of his statement, that meant it was unlikely to be a successful prosecution. I see several other people HAVE been prosecuted whose statements were less ambiguous and also, bluntly, they were 'little people'. More than a dozen people charged by US unit for threatening election workers Justice department taskforce seeks to protect government employees, many of whom are deciding it’s ‘not worth it to stay’ ... Normally, the periods between elections are quiet for the workers who run voting systems around the US. But for many, that’s no longer true, said Jena Griswold, the Colorado secretary of state, a Democrat who has pushed back against conspiracy theories surrounding elections. “I anticipate it will get worse as we end this year and go into the presidential election next year,” Griswold said. Griswold said the threats come in “waves”, usually following social media posts by prominent figures about false claims the 2020 election was stolen or blogposts on far-right websites. I'm not sure what the bit about 'prominent figures' refers to.
Lowest common denominator: [Picked the wrong book title. pic.twitter.com/DmlXh0OvRn— Paul Klein 🏎️🇺🇸🇳🇴🏎️ (@SgtWRC) August 25, 2024 Same with government officials: Veterans who took part in the Insurrection should have ALL their veterans benefits forfeited and have their discharge changed to dishonorable. Can’t be part of a cult that tried to overthrow the government while simultaneously taking from the government.— Señor Clyde (@86_clyde) August 25, 2024
Yeah, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. It's like a Libertarian who drives on a road, goes to a park or went to a public school. Like the people who complain that the Gub-mint has it's grubby little hands all over mah Medicare.
Moms for liberty is a terrorist organization: North Carolina Moms for Liberty Chapter Vice President arrested for January 6th. https://t.co/XW64gzvEyV pic.twitter.com/X02u6M72uT— Mark Freezy (@freezy_mark) September 13, 2024
Model family: Ashli Babbitt’s brother, Roger Witthoeft, 34, was convicted by a San Diego jury of a misdemeanor battery count and a hate crime allegation for striking a Latino San Diego Gas & Electric worker in Point Loma and shouting racial slurs at the man. He was also convicted of violating… https://t.co/vD2aAM3j0V pic.twitter.com/d0z8iMMRKM— Kate Ross (@kate_ross_) September 20, 2024
Ashli Babbitt’s mother and the wife of a notorious insurrectionist moved into a townhouse near @OberandOut and @HannaRosin’s home in deep-blue Washington, D.C. Getting to know them proved to be a revealing—and surprising—experience. https://t.co/37vawtLldN— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) September 18, 2024 The tweet has a link to a podcast by 2 journos who live in DC. Ashli Babbitt’s mom moved into their neighborhood, and the podcast (so far) interweaves events of Jan 6 with how the mom is as a neighbor. 2 interesting things so far 1. Note how the podcasters describe how they felt when they saw the “militia mobile.” Compare that to the kind of feelings Vance and Trump are trying to stoke about immigrants. I’m NOT NOT NOT justifying what Trump is doing, I’m just pointing out how these two liberal journos reacted to an outsider who doesn’t share the neighborhoods values moving into the neighborhood. 2. Mom calls her house Eagle’s Nest, but swears it’s not a tribute to Hitler. I was, um, unconvinced.
1) Black guys moving into a white neighborhood isn't a sign they do not share your values. Militia mobile is political and tells you who they are before they say hi
Not so. When the newest Black family in my neighborhood moved in, the Dad and at least one of the sons were wearing Yankee caps. There were also bumper stickers on the cars. Pretty clear they do not share my values.
I read a cute story once like that. Soke newlyweds moved into a neighborhood and as they were nerds, they put the Space Federation flag on their flagpole. The next week the looked and their neighbors down the street had put up the Clingon Confederacy flag.
@Deadtigers is there a reason you changed the “immigrants” in my post to “black guys?” If that’s because of Springfield, I wasn’t talking about that in any narrow sense. I’m more talking about the general anti immigrant theme that Trump has always used and that works so well for him.
There's a guy with a Trump 2024 flag on a full size flagpole near me. Next to it is a faded Trump 2020 flag. Problem is I'm living in a small town in Shropshire, England.
It's a cult. When I was in Auckland last month I overheard a conversation between two Kiwis. One was saying how much he likes the orange fascist and how he's never actually been convicted of any felony.
Well that was part of it but it was more in relation to thebstory in the police thread I posted. 2 black guys move next door and the neighbor calls his cop friend to tell him do something as 2 black guys moved next door. The cop and 5 other cops, go over physically abuse and maim the two black guys. The black guys being present didn't do anything other than move into the neighborhood but that was their crime. The Babbitt family moved in and annouced they were very different from their neighbors.
Meanwhile, the new neighbors here moved in and immediately put up a flagpole and raised the US flag-- and I resent it very much. Because it is almost certainly intended to express support for Trump. You can have "Don't Tread on Me," you can have the Pine Tree flag, the Confederate battle flag-- but the stars and stripes is OURS. I may not fly it often, but I don't want to be forced to not fly it lest I be taken to support what I most definitely oppose. Talk about cultural assimilation...
As long as it's not the People Democratic Republic of Telford, (the PDRT), that's fine. Gotta say, though, that's pretty surprising.