Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Tim WALZ’S Covid TYRANNY Exposed; Set Up SNITCH HOTLINE, Backed Nursing Home Policy: Robby Soave" video.

 @JustinFREAKIN What GOP speech was prosecuted? I think some might have been. But since you seem to know, so give us references.
6
@JustinFREAKIN Under Brandenburg, speech can be prosecuted only if it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The "and" is important: the test has TWO parts. Jessica keeps saying "clear and present danger." She is misinforming her audience about constitutional law.
5
@OldWanderingMillennial No, she is wrong. There is general principle, and very narrowly-crafted exceptions. "Clear and present danger" is not even the correct legal term. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
4
@squatch545 If you actually read some cases and saw how these are applied in the real world, you might have a clue. If someone apparently threatens you, how do you know whether it is a true threat or a joke, hyperbole, etc.?
4
@sammiller6631 What? The first part of the test involves the aim and intent of the speech, which is to incite a lawless act, and the second part pertains to the context, which creates a tangible risk that the speech WILL produce a lawless act.
4
@OldWanderingMillennial She has no idea what she's talking about. What Musk said might not be acceptable in UK. I don't know the law in UK. Jessica doesn't know the law here. Brandenburg v. Ohio is the law here. "Clear and present danger" is too vague. It is not the standard. But she keeps repeating it. The correct standard is that speech must be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to incite or produce such action." Short of that, the speech cannot be criminalized. Is Jessica spreading misinformation about the Constitution?
3
@squatch545 Yes there are clear definitions. Read Brandenburg v. Ohio and Virginia v. Black. Don't listen to these non-lawyers; especially not Jessica. She has NO idea. Robby is better.
3
@squatch545 Burning a cross is a material action. RAV v. City of St. Paul and Virginia v. Black did not allow prosecution under an unconstitutional law. In both cases, the defendant could have violated OTHER laws. Get it?
3
@LenRenBen Correct, in general "misinformation" is protected speech. There are specific, very narrow exceptions involving fraud, election interference, etc., all of which require intent.
3
@matthew7458 There are categories of speech that are not First Amendment protected, and "hate speech" and "violent speech" are NOT categories of unprotected speech. Incitement to imminent lawlessness is generally unprotected speech. Could incitement to imminent lawlessness also be hateful and violent? Or could it be calmly conspiratorial? Yes to both. It's not the "hate" that makes it illegal.
2
@sammiller6631 Fail
2
Love speech could be violent speech. An incitement to imminent violence could be framed in terms of patriotism and love of country, and pity for the target, "but we must do what we must do," to "save" our homes and families. See? Has Jessice ever seen a Venn diagram?
1
@squatch545 There are any number of reasons why police chose not to act on what you may well have correctly identified as a true threat. That has nothing to do with the law being unclear. Does every act that could lead to arrest actually lead to arrest? Is every arrest correctly based on an actually illegal act?
1
@LenRenBen There was a recent "stolen valor" case before the Supreme Court, where the defendant lied about serving not for the purpose of gaining any tangible benefit except to impress a group he was with, basically comparable to bragging at a sports bar. The Supreme Court said his lie could not be prosecuted. It was protected by the First Amendment. The law didn't reach that far, and couldn't; lying to get people to like you, in an ordinary setting, could not be criminalized. (If he had gotten so much as a penny for it, his conviction would never have been reversed.)
1
@squatch545 Of course you have to apply the law to the evidence. That two people may legitimately disagree about what constitutes defamation doesn't mean there is no rule, or that "the rule" is fake and a cover, and is always bent to favor one's own tribe. Deviations from fairness don't prove fairness lacks a definition. Disagreement about that definition doesn't prove there isn't one. Disagreement about whether something is free speech in extreme cases does not mean free speech has no core definition. It's like the police case you mentioned. They could have failed to act for a bunch of reasons, even if you were in fact threatened. Maybe they weren't sufficiently persuaded to take action, even if they thought you were probably right. Maybe they were too lazy. Maybe they thought it should be up to you to obtain legal advice and sue, and get unemployment benefits in the meantime. Or, maybe they are rank incompetents. Consider all the recent cases where police failed to act and it ended tragically. (But also consider the times when they overreacted and were sued.)
1
@squatch545 Defamation has always existed, and the Sandy Hook families had to overcome a high bar to succeed in their suit against Jones.
1
@scottm2553 Love speech could be violent speech. An incitement to imminent violence could be framed in terms of patriotism and love of country, and pity for the target "but we must do what we must do," to "save" our homes and families. See? Has Jessice ever seen a Venn diagram?
1
 @ryancappo It would be a good idea if our schools taught civics. That is literally not First Amendment law, and Brandenburg proves it. RAV v. City of St. Paul took place in Minnesota.
1
 @scottm2553 There is no guarantee that all artistic expression is protected because some art is obscene and obscenity is unprotected. Do you see what is wrong with this framing?
1
@crhu319 How is it wrong or incoherent? The standard has been repeatedly upheld.
1