The American Civil Liberties Union

wasn't that a bill maher joke?

---

אָרַח

It was illegal for people to have sex outside of marriage, sex with people of different ethnic background, sex with toys, sex without the chance of conception, sex with people of the same gender, sex with onesself, sex with a camera in use...All these things changed because people who were wanting to do things that were illegal, encouraged continued behavior and challenge the laws as improper. Are you suggesting that they were errant?How about any other right that you currently have that was a result of challenging existing laws by encouraging bucking the system? The ability to drink? How about having the US as a nation?Pick a side and stick with it. In the US, patriotism means questioning authority and fighting for maximum freedom for all, including those freedoms you yourself may not want to take part in.This message has been edited by holmes, 05-12-2005 06:35 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Monk writes:

quote:

---

But NAMBLA is encouraging illegal behavior through their website and the ACLU has stated that they have a right to do so.

---

And the ACLU is absolutely right to say that. You have a 1st amendment right to advocate any activity you wish, legal or illegal. Where would we in the South be if Martin Luther King, Jr. had not enjoyed the right to advocate defiance of the law?Please don't misunderstand, I am in no way comparing MLK to NAMBLA. But I am saying that just as MLK had the right to advocate what was at that time illegal activity, NAMBLA has a right to do the same thing.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Yeah, people encourage illegal behavior all the time.In fact, several times on this very forum, I've encouraged people to break both federal drug laws, and state sodomy laws. Preferably at the same time. Should I be locked up?

not true. in certain instances, some speech is not protected. although hate speech is, hate speech that incites violence is not. death threats, and bomb threats are not protected speech. speech that causes mass-hysteria (like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, resulting in tramplings, injuries, or death) is not protected.i forget the exact standard, but i think the illegal activity advocated has to cause serious physical harm or endanger the lives and well beings of innocent people and/or government officials.nambla is a bit of a tought case. are they advocating consentual unions (statutory rape) or actual rape and molestation?This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-12-2005 08:51 PM

---

אָרַח

I think you're talking about inciting to riot, Arachnophilia. I'm not sure exactly what the standard is either, but yelling "fire" in a theater or leading a mob to violence is not considered merely advocating. It's considered to be taking action.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

[editted for clarity]actions = symbolic speech. see the tinker case i cited on page one, as well as cohen v. california, and any number of cases involving non-vocal speech or artistic expressionThis message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-12-2005 10:55 PM

---

אָרַח

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is symbolic speech? I don't get your point. If you're trying to say that organizations like NAMBLA do not enjoy free speech rights, which was the issue Monk brought up, then say so. Otherwise I can't understand where you're going.I'm not trying to argue, I'm just saying that you've got me confused.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Monk, I'm beginning to understand how you, and many others, approach social problems. Rather than try to treat the disease, you tend to focus on the symptoms.Trust me, you do not want to start sensoring what people think or say. For example, many people, including myself, don't like what the KKK and neo-nazis have to say. Suppose we push through a legislation that shut them up. In order to do this, we have to ignore the first amendment. For the time being, we are happy because the KKK and neo-nazis are shut off. But we paid a big price for that.Now, suppose in the near future the atheist high command dominate America and they want to shut off all religious talks in the country. Now you're not happy anymore but you can't do anything about it because you gave up the first amendment a few years back.You can't go around picking and choosing who should enjoy the right to free speech and who shouldn't.Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

well, no. it's actual speech. my point was that crossing over into the realm of action is meaningless. tinker, which crash referenced and i cited, was a case involving actions -- wearing armbands.actions can be protected speech.but speech that incites violence cannot. if i remember the standard correctly.

---

אָרַח

Crash and Berb were correct and you seem to be missing the difference between advocacy and incitement. Incitement is immediate and considered if not actually taking action, it is causative given its context. Incitement is also usually directed at something specific, while advocacy is generalized.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

i'm confused as to how that's not exactly what i said.here's what i wrote above:

quote:

---

not true. in certain instances, some speech is not protected. although hate speech is, hate speech that incites violence is not. death threats, and bomb threats are not protected speech. speech that causes mass-hysteria (like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, resulting in tramplings, injuries, or death) is not protected.

​

i forget the exact standard, but i think the illegal activity advocated has to cause serious physical harm or endanger the lives and well beings of innocent people and/or government officials.

---

i also specifically used the word "incite" in the bit that you quoted.berberry was just arguing that it was a standard based on speech becoming action, when it's not. it's a standard based on harm. actions can be protected speech, such as demonstrations, performance art, armband-wearing, etc. speech that directly causes (specific) HARM cannot be.[edit]i'm also confused about what crash was right about. he asked for legal precedent regarding searches and seizures in public schools, and i gave him a number of cases, one of which specifically spells out the rules of when searches and seizures are allowed, and under what standard. his only other post i did not disagree with.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-13-2005 07:31 AM

---

אָרַח

Actually it turns out I was a bit confused, though perhaps I was still correct in part.The topic was NAMBLA and you were suggesting it was a close case based on what they were advocating. At least that seemed to be the case based on this specific sentence... That read to me, especially with the following sentence stating that NAMBLA is a close call, that incitement is determined by whether the actions being advocated would cause serious harmm and or endanger others.If I am reading that wrong then I apologize.If I read it right, then you are wrong. The point of incitement is the context of where and how the speech, whatever it is, was delivered such that it would cause some form of danger. The nature of what was said is irrelevant to context.For example if in some hypothetical situation yelling I love peanut butter sandwiches would likely result in panic and danger, then you'd get nailed.Advocacy is simply stirring people up to change and or do something in general, in a situation (context) which is not immediate and so allows you a reasonable chance to decide to do something else. You can say you hate ethnic minority X and think they all should be sterilized and it is protected, despite the actions advocated being dangerous to members of that group.Likewise you could advocate suicide and that would also clearly be dangerous to someone taking the advice, yet since you are not yelling to a troubled individual to go ahead and jump you are not inciting.As far as my crash reference, I think I was thinking of Dan and Monk. So nevermind.This message has been edited by holmes, 05-13-2005 07:52 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

i stated that bit as a question because i am unfamiliar with nambla, and don't feel like looking them up. i don't know what nambla does in detail. if i did, i might be able to make a call. it's not so much a "close call" as me being unacquainted with their type of speech. if they are encouraging their members to forcibly rape young boys, then it's probably not protected, as this can be an immediate threat to the society.but i'm gonna forego addressing your individual points and point out the actual standards:"fighting words" (applies to advocacy of specific violence, as i said above)

quote:

---

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

​

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

---

hate speech (group libel)

quote:

---

Beauharnais v. Illinois

​

Libelous utterances not being within the area of constitutionally protected speech, it is unnecessary . . . to consider the issues behind the phrase 'clear and present danger.'

---

quote:

---

R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul

​

[hate speech, defamation, obscenity, and fighting words] can, consistently with the First Amendment, be regulated because of their constitutionally proscribable content

---

now, this is what i'm referring to. when speech encourages immediate and specific violence, it is not protected. i think you're referring to this:

quote:

---

The Incitement Test (Brandenburg v. Ohio)

​

The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

---

these are not TOTALLY mutually exclusive. both include the ideas of imminent violence: "clear and present danger." so, basically, i forgot to indicate "immediate" physical harm anywhere. but it's what i was trying to get at -- it's just been a while since i've looked at conlaw.[edit]i include "specific" for a reason, though. threats of violence have to be direct to not be protected. for instance, the court found in NAACP v Clairborne Hardware that indirect threats violence to a large group, designed to persuade future actions, are protected.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-13-2005 09:19 AM

---

אָרַח

also, i think dan and monk are on opposing sides.personally, i'm just trying to provide a background. for the most part, i agree with the courts.err, also editted because i figured out where the confusion came from. i meant the speech itself has to cause the harm, or actually endanger people, not that the actions encouraged have to be serious. i think i left out the word "being" actually. it should have read the "illegal being advocated has to cause... etc" but even then it's still very unclear.i was trying to express the "imminent danger" bit on no sleep and a poor memory. so uh, sorry, my fault.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-13-2005 09:39 AM

---

אָרַח