Att: DU lawyers and legal types: re. political shootings.....

[Smarmie Doofus]

... is it not illegal to incite people to violence

as seen here :


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3790402


in at least *some* jurisdictions? That is to say.. are there not NOW laws on the books that prohibit speech that is designed to inflame and incite (as it appears recent political murderers have been incited and inflamed) via print, TV and esp, RADIO?

Weren't the Chicago 8 indicted... for among other things... "crossing state lines with intent to incite to riot."

And if there ARE such laws what would it take to get them enforced?

This is getting to be like the weather: "everyone talks about it", but....

[atreides1]

1. Good question

If such laws exist the only way to get them enforced is to get the DOJ to...sorry I forgot.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. Must it be DOJ? Aren't there any relevant *local* statutes?

Hard to believe there are none.

And if there are... couldn't/shouldn't local DAs impanel grand juries to evaluate the existing evidence?

[theboss]

6. It wouldn't have to be the DOJ, but there are no laws that would be upheld

Most of these cases were local statutes for inciting violence. Nearly all of them intended to keep the communists or the blacks quiet.

The First Amendment gives nearly unlimited protection in this area. See below.

[baldguy]

2. Proximate cause

It must be proven that one's actions are the proximate cause of the violence in question, and that there were no other conditions which may have contributed to it.

[theboss]

7. You just cited a test for an intentional tort

That's not really the standard here.

[Romulox]

24. The concept of "Proximate Cause" is not limited to intentional torts

It is also applicable in non-intentional torts (e.g. negligence, strict-liability) and some criminal offenses.

[theboss]

27. I know that

It's still not the standard here.

[onenote]

3. incitement is a very narrow and rarely applied crime -- not applicable here

In the US, the crime of "incitement" to the extent it exists, is very narrow, thanks to some very smart and progressive justices of the Supreme Court, including William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, Hugo Black etc, all of whom participated in the unanimous decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, where the conviction of a KKK leader for "advocacy" of violence was overturned. The court made it clear that in order constitute a criminal act, speech must be directed to inciting or producing "imminent" lawless action and must be "likely" to incite or produce such action. Given that limpballs and his ilk have millions of listeners, the fact that one occasionally goes off his rocker (and, by the way, the idea that the Little Rock shooter is rushbot is simply speculation at this point) hardly is evidence that the ravings of rw radio are directed to producing imminent lawless action or likely to have that effect.

Rush is a big fat idiot, but I'd rather put up with him than have the First Amendment eviscerated

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. So if Ms. Coutler , for instance, says liberals should be beaten...

... with baseball bats and no liberal is beaten "imminently" with a baseball bat ( BTW how is "imminent" defined, legally speaking?) but is instead beaten .....well, "post-imminently"; let's say a week later... by someone "off his rocker", with Coulter's sweet musings still rolling around in his/her head ( I'll grant that this would be hard to establish but let's assume)no harm is done and no crime has occurred?

OK.. harm is done; but no crime... other than that perpetrated by the bat-wielder.


>>>>hardly is evidence that the ravings of rw radio are directed to producing imminent lawless action or likely to have that effect.>>>>

There's that word again. But why should one assume that Coulter's ravings in this case would are "directed" in any other way than the way she appears to "direct" them?

Her intention, not so much the "imminence", it would seem is what's really at issue. No? If she wants to defend herself in front of a grand jury by saying she really didn't mean " liberals should be beaten with baseball bats" despite the fact that she said " liberals should be beaten with baseball bats", it seems to me grand jurors could responsibly find that she probably meant what she said. Especially if someone acts out her scenario and implicates her. ( All hypothetical at this point, to be sure)

Justice Douglas wisdom notwithstanding. Did you know ( off topic) that he was nearly twice picked by FDR for veep?

[theboss]

17. She would be fine

There is no crime in saying that Rush Limbaugh should be raped by an Aryan gang member.

[Smarmie Doofus]

20. But is there a crime in saying "Public Official X should be....

... assassinated." ?

[theboss]

22. It is a crime to directly threaten the President

That was upheld...though to be honest....that is the kind of law that could be overturned the more distance we get from 1963.

I honestly don't know if there is federal law involving Senators or Representatives. I don't think there is.

But - in general - you can advocate an assassination.

[theboss]

5. There is nothing illegal on that list

The standard is that a state cannot "forbid or regulate 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.”

So, essentially, there have to be two things occuring.

1. A command for immediate violence. "Go shoot a Democrat right now!"
2. And the likelihood of violence occurring from such a command. "You old people in this rest home. Let's fucking riot!"

"Mere advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the First Amendment."

Howard Stern can have on that Ku Klux Klan guy every morning who talks about lighting gay people on fire. And unless you can prove that he is seeking to produce imminent lawless violence (in the moment) and that someone is actually likely to listen to him, he is free to say what he wants.

This is why those Black Israelites in Times Square can say whatever they want, as loudly as they want.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. Can someone legally advocate the assassination of an elected official?

As long as he/she doesn't say "now!"?

This seems highly improbable.

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. Where does this come from:

>>>>"Mere advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the First Amendment.">>>>>

Googled it but can't quite isolate it.




>>>Howard Stern can have on that Ku Klux Klan guy every morning who talks about lighting gay people on fire. And unless you can prove that he is seeking to produce imminent lawless violence (in the moment) and that someone is actually likely to listen to him, he is free to say what he wants.

This is why those Black Israelites in Times Square can say whatever they want, as loudly as they want.>>>>


In other words, one would have to prove cause and effect, as well as intent. I'm ok with that. I think in the example of Ms Coulter, her verbatim quote can serve as, at least, preliminary evidence of her intent... since people tend to mean what they say, barring extentuating circumstances.

Imminenncy would be hard to prove or disprove in our time, seems to me. Modern mass communication has no relation to anything dreamed of by Holmes.... or even someone writing in the Warren Court era.

Might be time for another standard.

[theboss]

28. Read Brandenburg v Ohio.

From the footnotes:

"Statutes affecting the right of assembly, like those touching on freedom of speech, must observe the established distinctions between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action."

Also, it is not simply a matter of cause and effect. Cause and effect actually has very little to do with it.

You need intent plus imminence.

If Candidate A says "We cannot allow Candidate B to be president." And someone then shoots Candidate B, that is cause and effect.

The courts have found that saying "We will take the street later" is not inciting a riot.

Basically, you have to advocate doing something in the present AND have a likelihood of it actually occurring.

[norepubsin08]

9. There could be other charges as well...

voter intimidation, aiding and abetting a murder, treason for subverting the political process, civil rights violations, hate crimes, misuse of FCC airwaves. A good prosecutor as they say "can indict a ham sandwich if he puts his mind to it" a good prosecutor can also put the screws to a defendant and get him/her to plead to at least something that will give some jail time and more importantly: a ling long record to follow them!

[theboss]

16. That is so idiotic

None of those are the least bit plausible.

[DailyGrind51]

11. What did Charles Manson get convicted for?

He never "personally" killed anyone. He never even went along on the Tate or LaBianco murders.

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. Conspiracy... not incitement.

From wiki:

>>>>>He was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders, which members of the group carried out at his instruction. Through the joint-responsibility rule of conspiracy,<4> he was convicted of the murders themselves.>>>


A slightly different kettle of fish. Although I can see where the fine line might become difficult to distinguish.

[theboss]

18. The fine line is "meeting of the minds"

Party A and Party B have to reach an agreement to commit the crimes. Possibly not spoken, but certainly understood.

How can Rush Limbaugh have a meeting of the minds with someone he has never met?

Because there is always the ability in a conspiracy to remove oneself, up to the point where the act is committed. Rush can't remove himself if he doesn't know who the person is that is committing a crime based on his suggestion. Conspiracy is specific to the actors. Both have to know what they are doing.

[theboss]

14. Conspiracy to commit murder

Huge difference

[L. Coyote]

13. Civil suits have bankrupted the people who do so. See Morris Dees

and the cases he has pursued! If someone is harmed for hate speech (attention Rush), they can end up in poverty for life.

[theboss]

15. They've bankruptted poor Klansmen and other idiots

Rush is worth half a billion probably.

[zanne]

23. "Poor Klansmen"? WTF? nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

25. My guess is he means *economically* poor Klansmen.

Not poor as in "sympathetic".

[theboss]

26. Poor as in "no money"

If you think Rush Limbaugh is going to be financially impacted by a civil suit, you are very mistaken.

[zanne]

29. Thanks for clearing that up. Phew! nt

[slackmaster]

19. Tom Metzger specifically instructed his skinhead followers on how to engage black people in fights

And in what to say and not to say to police, so that if the person happened to die as a result, it could be written off as "just a fight". He gave very detailed, specific instructions on how to initiate a physical altercation and how to spin it.

Here is how Dees did it: http://www.splcenter.org/legal/docket/files.jsp?cdrID=11&sortID=0