DHS and Right vs Left "Extremism"

Smyrna · 2022-05-21T13:43:49.452Z

To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)

Applying the Brandenburg Test
Cases applying the Brandenburg test stress just how high the bar is set before the government can criminalize someone for advocating dissent or violence.

First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).)

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

Inciting to Riot, Violence, or Insurrection

Criminal incitement refers to conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection.

Now consider the current gatherings outside of our SCOTUS Justices homes…were they incited and empowered by Schumer’s words? I’d conclude most definitely.

IMO Congress should enact laws prohibiting any and all protests with in a legalized perimeter of a current Judge’s home.

JayJay · 2022-05-21T13:54:18.394Z

Smyrna:

JayJay:

Of course politicians are going to politic.

He crossed the line my friend and there is no excuse…not from him or those that excuse this…like you just did.

I did nothing of the sort.

I asked for YOUR opinion on the matter.

What is YOUR opinion?

Should extreme rhetoric be considered extremism?

Shouldn’t be difficult for you to give your position in the subject.

Smyrna · 2022-05-21T13:55:28.246Z

JayJay:

Of course politicians are going to politic.

JayJay:

I did nothing of the sort.

K…

That wasn’t “politic”, it was inciting violence against SCOTUS Justices…period.

SixFoot · 2022-05-21T14:15:55.011Z

“Supreme Court could rule on Roe v. Wade on Monday, as Biden admin braces for violence after decision”

Inherent (D)omestic terrorism from a violent pack of animals who know nothing else.

WuWei · 2022-05-21T14:17:26.185Z

I disagree with the very concept of “unprotected speech” in this context.

WuWei · 2022-05-21T14:18:38.280Z

JayJay:

Should extreme rhetoric be considered extremism?

Should extremism be illegal?

SixFoot · 2022-05-21T14:19:03.745Z

A leaked draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito signaling the high court plans to overturn landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade sparked pro-choice protests nationwide and an uptick in violence.

See? Decision not even made yet. It’s all these animals know.

gooddad409 · 2022-05-21T14:21:24.074Z

SixFoot:

A leaked draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito signaling the high court plans to overturn landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade sparked pro-choice protests nationwide and an uptick in violence.

See? Decision not even made yet. It’s all these animals know.

SixFoot · 2022-05-21T14:25:08.068Z

It’s literally ALL they know.

“I don’t like this… BURN ALL THE THINGS!!”

Smyrna · 2022-05-21T14:34:16.465Z

WuWei:

I disagree with the very concept of “unprotected speech” in this context.

A “judge” represents 1/3 of our checks and balance systems. They can NOT be threatened in any way or it totally disrupts the intent of our forefathers. They must be protected by law and Schiff’s rhetoric was inexcusable IMO.

Smyrna · 2022-05-21T14:37:27.636Z

SixFoot:

“Supreme Court could rule on Roe v. Wade on Monday, as Biden admin braces for violence after decision”

…but “we” know one thing for sure, this “violence” and those involved will be treated much different than those of January 6th.

SixFoot · 2022-05-21T14:43:42.151Z

Smyrna:

SixFoot:

“Supreme Court could rule on Roe v. Wade on Monday, as Biden admin braces for violence after decision”

…but “we” know one thing for sure, this “violence” and those involved will be treated much different than those of January 6th.

Very (D)ifferent.

image1110×671 55.8 KB

image1200×675 119 KB

Smyrna · 2022-05-21T14:44:10.442Z

…yep.

WuWei · 2022-05-21T14:55:45.960Z

I disagree.

Ben_Natuf · 2022-05-21T21:37:27.136Z

rhetoric is rhetoric.

why does dhs consider any rhetoric that goes against the left inciting, yet the same left wing rhetoric is just rhetoric?

Ben_Natuf · 2022-05-21T21:43:53.447Z

no worries, it will all be mostly peaceful, perhaps a bit firey

JayJay · 2022-05-21T22:38:01.837Z

Smyrna:

JayJay:

Of course politicians are going to politic.

JayJay:

I did nothing of the sort.

K…

That wasn’t “politic”, it was inciting violence against SCOTUS Justices…period.

That’s not who I was referring to.

Now…your opinion on the subject, please?

Is use of extreme rhetoric extremist? Yes or no.

JayJay · 2022-05-21T22:38:52.346Z

Has there been any violence outside the justices’ houses?

DougBH · 2022-05-22T00:53:50.044Z

Of course verbal extremism is extremism. People are allowed to be extreme, and the government has to live with that under the first amendment. Violent, illegal actions in furtherance of that extremism is not permissible.

zantax · 2022-05-22T03:23:14.302Z

JayJay:

Has there been any violence outside the justices’ houses?

There doesn’t need to be overt violence for them to be threatened and intimidated. What a garbage dodge.