Virginia cleric gets life for urging war against USA

[Matt W]

And ordered them to do so. There's a difference.

[liverleef]

Quote by: Tesserakt The solution doesn't lie in locking up anyone who says something we don't like. It's in finding out if he's justifitied in what he says. That may sound difficult, but it's the only way to actually solve a bigger problem. How much extra publicity have his rants gotten because we locked him up? How many more people might be incited to violence because of our solution? The easy route is simply to say "he hates the United States" as the Assistant Attorney said. The effective way is to take a no bs assessment of what our actions in foreign countries mean. As long as middle eastern regimes treat their people like garbage we shouldn't be enabling them by purchasing their oil. It's like the sons of an evil 7-11 owner attacking the customers for doing business with their parents. It's scary when people in our own country are so ignorant that they can be brought to a standing applause over some meaningless jingoistic catch-phrase like "Over There", when the reality of our envolvement in the ME both legit and illigitimate ensure crazed suicide bombers will come "Over Here".

Thats pretty simplistic dont you think? So who is going to decide what opinion is justified? Is the government going to decide who has an opinion worthy of free speech and who doesnt? That really doesnt sound like free speech to me

[Tesserakt]

Quote by: liverleef Thats pretty simplistic dont you think? So who is going to decide what opinion is justified? Is the government going to decide who has an opinion worthy of free speech and who doesnt? That really doesnt sound like free speech to me

I'm saying "let's not shoot the messenger".

[Osborn F Enready]

I am saying, let us abide the Constitution of the United States, since it is our ONLY binding contract.

[Whodoe!]

Article 3 Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Treason: the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war.

Being a person of influence and using that influence to cause others to engage in the armed overthrow of the US Government is rightly a crime in the US.

It is an easy claim that recruiting on behalf of an enemy would be aiding and comforting that enemy. The guy broke the law and was found guilty in a due process of law under our constitution. He was not engaging in a debate about conditions here and how best to change them – he told his followers to go join an army and try to kill US citizens, overthrow our government and replace it with one suitable to his religious needs. To say this is protected as free speech, right to assemble and so on is a reach not a speech.

[madprophet]

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.

The key word is "imminent."

The Ohio statute which came under scrutiny in the Brandenburg case was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. "Advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and for "voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism," was confirmed as protected under the First Amendment.

'We should blow up federal buildings.' = protected

'Go right now and blow up the federal building located at...' = not protected.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/com...andenburg.html

Personally, I think all speech is protected. Given that the people who came up with the First Amendment had just got done inciting a revolution against their government, I don't see any other way to view it. But then, it's only a piece of paper.

"The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away: The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free." ------- Utah Phillips