Quote:
|
Quote by: rmnunez Free speech has never meant completely unrestricted freedom to say anything. Content may be restricted as was seen in 1969 in Brandenberg v. Ohio if the speech "is directed at producing or inciting imminent lawless action" ...and "is likely to produce or incite such action". The question generally concerns the imminence of the lawless action threatened by the inciting speech. The idea is that someone leading a rally or demonstration can't urge his followers to "throw the bums out" as he leads them towards City Hall -if it appears they could actually do this when they got there. They call it the "clear and present danger" test. |
Thank you for illustrating this point. It is silly is assume free speech should be used to protect people who would use their influence to incite violence.