One person exercising their rights almost always infringes on another person's rights. For a perhaps reductivist and silly instance, on a public walkway, you and I each have the same right to stand on a particular spot and gaze at the buildings around us. If you get there first, you're now infringing on my right to stand on that spot. How do we solve this dilemma without then infringing on your rights? It's a thorny question, especially when the instance isn't as inconsequential as this example.
Interesting philosophical dilemma. My personal view is libertarian in application, that the maximization of freewill with minimal personal interference is ideal. That said, I condemn and abhor anarchy. And isn't this why some cases end up going to the Supreme Court? That they are so thorny, as you said, that it ultimately is left to the fate of a panel of esteemed Justices.
In my silly example above, if I start telling people around me that you should be forcibly removed from "my" standing spot, and then act on my convictions, regardless of whether I'm physically strong enough to make you move, where does "clear and present danger" appear? When I actually touch you? When I get another person or two to agree with me? When they touch you? How about when I pull out my gun and point it at your head? I'd say, the intent to try and cause harm was there from the moment I started complaining that you should be moved from your freely chosen spot.
Clear and present danger only applies to speech, as in, if you're on a airplane and suddenly shout, "I have a bomb!" You no longer have the First Amendment protecting your speech. Placing your hands on someone against their wishes is simply assault and/or battery depending on the subjects actions. Speech then becomes irrelevant and so does the concept of clear and present danger.
Again, it depends on the intent. I watched Patten Oswalt's stand-up special on Comedy Central last night. He emphasized Obama's middle name as a lead up to the punch-line of a joke. I see nothing threatening in this, in fact, I found it wuite funny. A redneck at a rally yelling it out in obvious anger while holding signs implying that Muslims can't be trusted or shouldn't be elected, might or might not be threatening behavior. It would depend on the specific circumstances. If that person advocates violence, then it is threatening and therefore, in my opinion, should be stopped or at least watched very closely.
Well, the FBI and Secret Service can and do take those declarations very seriously and do monitor people like that. Hundreds of cases each year, in fact. But it's still just speech. And I don't think what that man said, which is mention his middle name in what sounded like derision, as something we need to take more seriously. Even if that guy flat out stated that he hates Arabs and hates Obama, he's free to believe what he wants so long as his actions (or words in some cases) don't correspond to a threat of violence.
Again, define clear and present danger. Is it when they actually say "Let's kill him!" Is it when he gets 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 people to agree with him? Is it when the gun appears? Is it only after the gun is fired? I agree it is a fine line to walk between protecting someone's rights and protecting the peace. I'm a strong liberal libertarian (as I define it), but I find advocating violence in a racist or bigoted way to be an abrogation of your right, it has as its intended effect, and outcome that leads to violence and infringement of someone's rights.
That doesn't sound very libertarian to me, as you freely want to deny people the right to believe whatever belief they wish.
So, I guess that's where I draw the line: when the intent is to infringe on someone's rights, regardless of whether that infringement is carried out at that time. What someone says can easily plant a seed in someone else's mind who may not have the same restraint or rationality.
It is definitely on a case by case basis. The line is certainly not clear. Some instances are more cut and dry, but there are some threats that are veiled, intentionally so. Like, "Just watch your back," as opposed to "I am going to stab you in the neck."
"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine
™ Version 4.2
