“The FBI visited my house today for free speech acts they knew were not crimes.”
Uh, calling for violence is NOT protected under the first amendment, so you can fuck right off with that.
“It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words – those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and even cause unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).
He feels threatened, though. That violates his NAP.
If these were black kids playing across the street rather than armed FBI agents pounding on his door, he likely would have tried to gun them down already.
Uh, calling for violence is NOT protected under the first amendment, so you can fuck right off with that.
“It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words – those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and even cause unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).
sure, but this guy is not even being charged with anything. we are talking about a warning.
He feels threatened, though. That violates his NAP.
If these were black kids playing across the street rather than armed FBI agents pounding on his door, he likely would have tried to gun them down already.
I mean if Trump’s speech for Jan 6 didn’t count…
Trump was actually arrested for that though.
Although it was for more than just the speech.
Nor should he be. What he said was most likely “protected” speech.
but very close to not being protected, hence the warning.
Wait. This means that art with lewd, obscene, or profane content is not protected?
And exactly what is “lewd, obscene, or profane” is not actually defined in the law.
Surely that’s never been abused in the past. No, sir.