Wanna duke out some academic debate over Sedition laws?
LOL!
I have been known to be willing to waste time on even relatively inconsequential stuff. But that's too silly (as waste of times go) for even me.
On the other hand, I'm not sure anybody can really divine what incitations to violence (with regard to advocating the overthrow of the United States government) constitute ones likely to incite IMMINENT violence versus those that may incite delayed violence. I'm also not exactly clear why the SCOTUS thinks that's a distinction that matters in terms of valid First Amendment analysis.
If you incite violence, but it isn't likely to be imminent, but is instead likely to be delayed, why should you not be subject to a sedition law?
'Splain eet to me.
Party pooper.
Sedition laws are anathema to the First Amendment for one thing, and for another are far too prone to political manipulation and abuse. Would you trust a Democratic Congress and President to write, pass and sign a sedition law defining what speech is "inciting" violence against the government? Would a Democrat trust a Republican Congress and President to do the same? Be honest here.
If you're not sure anybody can divine what speech is likely to cause delayed violence, how can a law be drafted defining exactly what that is and a prosecution have the ability to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? There will always be doubt as to what speech "could" have an effect on what nutter out there. Should it all then be criminalized if the government deems it "could" lead to violence down the road? If it could incite a reasonable person? If it could incite a nutcase living in a bunker? In the context of the First Amendment that's absurd.
Excuse me, but bullshit!
Sedition laws are far from anathema to the First Amendment.
That's a nonsensical thing to say.
There is not a rational view of the First Amendment that protects speech designed to incite the violent overthrow of the U.S unless you happen to imagine that the Constitution IS a suicide pact.
And, if one is attempting to incite the violence associated with any effort to overthrow the government, then whether it's imminent or something which might be delayed until next week or next month is a distinction with no meaningful difference.
You seem unable to wrap your head around the concept, but the damn SCOTUS is fully capable of making idiotic decisions.
Don't any of you libs grasp the real intent of the First Amendment?
sheesh.
Hardly. The problem is in writing and executing the law itself. Where does criticism end and "inciting future violence" begin, and whose crystal ball are you going to use?
Brandenburg's imminent standard is pretty clear cut. You catch the guy at the head of the mob, already drunk with pichforks in hand and headed to the castle, he ain't protected. You catch the guy talking to his buddies about maybe doing the mob thing next Tuesday night, what is that? Inciting possible future violence? A guy just joking around? A drunk who'll sleep it off? Is that worth abrogating the First for?