Glenn Beck is not fooling around anymore, he is attempting to incite violence

[KittenKoder]

This is the logic and rancid LIES of Glenn Beck and his ilk:

"I'm not saying that Obama doesn't like white people, but he is, I think, he is a racist."

WTF.com is that!?!?!?!

Its the same logic and tactic that the OP says Beck's indulging in.

"I'm not saying to do x, but do x."

You Far Rightwing Nutjobs really have a knack for picking the wrong leaders boy...I tell ya.

*SMH*

No one supporting Obama is capable of abstract thought ... another of the many reasons I stopped supporting the Dems.

 

[JakeStarkey]

KittenKoder, you are funny! Screwy as Louie, but funny!

 

[KittenKoder]

KittenKoder, you are funny! Screwy as Louie, but funny!

No, what's "Screwy as Louie" is blindly following and supporting one party or a moron just because he comes up with a catchy phrase.

 

[JakeStarkey]

KittenKoder, you are funny! Screwy as Louie, but funny!

No, what's "Screwy as Louie" is blindly following and supporting one party or a moron just because he comes up with a catchy phrase.

Keep em coming, please!

 

[KittenKoder]

KittenKoder, you are funny! Screwy as Louie, but funny!

No, what's "Screwy as Louie" is blindly following and supporting one party or a moron just because he comes up with a catchy phrase.

Keep em coming, please!

Are you just flaming now for no reason, or is there a related point to this?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kitten, I would not flame you, not when your idol is Heidi Abram's sister, Katy.

 

[KittenKoder]

Kitten, I would not flame you, not when your idol is Heidi Abram's sister, Katy.

No ... my idol is HP Lovecraft. This is flaming ... now to try to stop:

Why are you so against Glenn Beck saying that we have a right to reclaim power over the government like our founding fathers did?

 

[goldcatt]

unless "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio (No. 492). SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 395 U.S. 444. Argued: February 27, 1969; Decided June 9, 1969.

Whether Beck was inciting or his actions were "producing imminent lawless action" is for a court to decide, hmmm? Yeah, he could be charged on the face of his broadcast.

Hardly.

The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute was enacted in 1919. From 1917 to 1920, identical or quite similar laws were adopted by 20 States and two territories. E. Dowell, A History of Criminal Syndicalism Legislation in the United States 21 (1939). In 1927, this Court sustained the constitutionality of California's Criminal Syndicalism Act, Cal.Penal Code §§ 11400-11402, the text of which is quite similar to that of the laws of Ohio. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). The Court upheld the statute on the ground that, without more, "advocating" violent means to effect political and economic change involves such danger to the security of the State that the State may outlaw it. Cf. Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927). But Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that 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. [n2] As we [p448] said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297-298 (1961),

the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.

See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 259-261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 134 (1966). A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control. Cf. Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967); Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (1966); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964).

Measured by this test, Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained. The Act punishes persons who "advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety" of violence "as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform"; or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing such advocacy; or who "justify" the commission of violent acts "with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism"; or who "voluntarily assemble" with a group formed "to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's bald definition of the crime [p449] in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action. [n3]

Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action. [n4] Such a statute falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The contrary teaching of Whitney v. California, supra, cannot be supported, and that decision is therefore overruled.

Reversed.

Full text:

Brandenburg v. Ohio

I have yet to see a clip or quote where Beck espoused, condoned or promoted violence, let alone rose to the level of leading the drunken angry mob that is necessary. Is he irresponsible in his rhetoric? I don't watch him regularly to know the context, but some of the clips I've seen would qualify. However, so would a lot of the posts on this board. Doesn't make it "incitement".

 

[goldcatt]

Quoted once again, for truthiness

the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.

(emphasis mine)

Per curiam decision, 2 concurrences, zero dissenters, and has stood in the face of challenge in both "liberal" and "conservative" courts for 40 years. Now what does this say to you, JakeStarkey?

 

[MarcATL]

No one supporting Obama is capable of abstract thought ... another of the many reasons I stopped supporting the Dems.

Good riddance.

And stay out!!!

 

[KittenKoder]

No one supporting Obama is capable of abstract thought ... another of the many reasons I stopped supporting the Dems.

Good riddance.

And stay out!!!

I'm not alone ...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kitten, I would not flame you, not when your idol is Heidi Abram's sister, Katy.

No ... my idol is HP Lovecraft. This is flaming ... now to try to stop:

Why are you so against Glenn Beck saying that we have a right to reclaim power over the government like our founding fathers did?

He can preach what he wants as long as he does incite violence iaw the Brandenburg Rule. Enough of the tape gives prosecutors grounds to examine possible federal charges, particularly whether those Glennan rants constructively endangered the President.

This is serious. Squeaky Fromm served forty years for a showing a pistol without a round in the chamber to President Ford. Beck is at risk, just the extent of it is not clear right now.

 

[goldcatt]

Kitten, I would not flame you, not when your idol is Heidi Abram's sister, Katy.

No ... my idol is HP Lovecraft. This is flaming ... now to try to stop:

Why are you so against Glenn Beck saying that we have a right to reclaim power over the government like our founding fathers did?

He can preach what he wants as long as he does incite violence iaw the Brandenburg Rule. Enough of the tape gives prosecutors grounds to examine possible federal charges, particularly whether those Glennan rants constructively endangered the President.

This is serious. Squeaky Fromm served forty years for a showing a pistol without a round in the chamber to President Ford. Beck is at risk, just the extent of it is not clear right now.

No. Beck is not "at risk", nor is there a question of fact remotely approaching the standard for a court to decide. I don't like Beck, I don't watch him, but don't piss on the First Amendment in an attempt to discredit him. Vote with your remote.

 

[KittenKoder]

Kitten, I would not flame you, not when your idol is Heidi Abram's sister, Katy.

No ... my idol is HP Lovecraft. This is flaming ... now to try to stop:

Why are you so against Glenn Beck saying that we have a right to reclaim power over the government like our founding fathers did?

He can preach what he wants as long as he does incite violence iaw the Brandenburg Rule. Enough of the tape gives prosecutors grounds to examine possible federal charges, particularly whether those Glennan rants constructively endangered the President.

This is serious. Squeaky Fromm served forty years for a showing a pistol without a round in the chamber to President Ford. Beck is at risk, just the extent of it is not clear right now.

So ... should all of the reporters and talk show hosts who did the same thing to Bush also be prosecuted? There are plenty of those as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

unless "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio (No. 492). SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 395 U.S. 444. Argued: February 27, 1969; Decided June 9, 1969.

Whether Beck was inciting or his actions were "producing imminent lawless action" is for a court to decide, hmmm? Yeah, he could be charged on the face of his broadcast.

Hardly.

The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute was enacted in 1919. From 1917 to 1920, identical or quite similar laws were adopted by 20 States and two territories. E. Dowell, A History of Criminal Syndicalism Legislation in the United States 21 (1939). In 1927, this Court sustained the constitutionality of California's Criminal Syndicalism Act, Cal.Penal Code §§ 11400-11402, the text of which is quite similar to that of the laws of Ohio. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). The Court upheld the statute on the ground that, without more, "advocating" violent means to effect political and economic change involves such danger to the security of the State that the State may outlaw it. Cf. Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927). But Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that 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. [n2] As we [p448] said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297-298 (1961),

the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.

See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 259-261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 134 (1966). A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control. Cf. Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967); Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (1966); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964).

Measured by this test, Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained. The Act punishes persons who "advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety" of violence "as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform"; or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing such advocacy; or who "justify" the commission of violent acts "with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism"; or who "voluntarily assemble" with a group formed "to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's bald definition of the crime [p449] in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action. [n3]

Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action. [n4] Such a statute falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The contrary teaching of Whitney v. California, supra, cannot be supported, and that decision is therefore overruled.

Reversed.

Full text:

Brandenburg v. Ohio

I have yet to see a clip or quote where Beck espoused, condoned or promoted violence, let alone rose to the level of leading the drunken angry mob that is necessary. Is he irresponsible in his rhetoric? I don't watch him regularly to know the context, but some of the clips I've seen would qualify. However, so would a lot of the pos ts on this board. Doesn't make it "incitement".

Sure it can. Since you don't have the law, I understand you playing with the facts. I image GB's lawyer is doing the same as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quoted once again, for truthiness

the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.

(emphasis mine)

Per curiam decision, 2 concurrences, zero dissenters, and has stood in the face of challenge in both "liberal" and "conservative" courts for 40 years. Now what does this say to you, JakeStarkey?

So did Jim Crow for eighty odd years. And the performance by Beck was volatile enough that some prosecutor with a law and order judge might decide to see if the can do an indictment waltz.

 

[goldcatt]

Quoted once again, for truthiness

the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.

(emphasis mine)

Per curiam decision, 2 concurrences, zero dissenters, and has stood in the face of challenge in both "liberal" and "conservative" courts for 40 years. Now what does this say to you, JakeStarkey?

So did Jim Crow for eighty odd years. And the performance by Beck was volatile enough that some prosecutor with a law and order judge might decide to see if the can do an indictment waltz.

If by "some prosecutor" you mean a Rule 15 dumbass with an incompetent supervisor and by "law and order judge" you mean one willing to throw away his career and reputation on a totalitarian fantasy, sure. Did you even read the case? Context matters, you know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quoted once again, for truthiness



(emphasis mine)

Per curiam decision, 2 concurrences, zero dissenters, and has stood in the face of challenge in both "liberal" and "conservative" courts for 40 years. Now what does this say to you, JakeStarkey?

So did Jim Crow for eighty odd years. And the performance by Beck was volatile enough that some prosecutor with a law and order judge might decide to see if the can do an indictment waltz.

If by "some prosecutor" you mean a Rule 15 dumbass with an incompetent supervisor and by "law and order judge" you mean one willing to throw away his career and reputation on a totalitarian fantasy, sure. Did you even read the case? Context matters, you know.

Methinks you doth protesteth too much. NY judges are only scared of certain other NY judges and are not too worried about appelate courts. Yeah, the scenario is quite possible.

 

[goldcatt]

So did Jim Crow for eighty odd years. And the performance by Beck was volatile enough that some prosecutor with a law and order judge might decide to see if the can do an indictment waltz.

If by "some prosecutor" you mean a Rule 15 dumbass with an incompetent supervisor and by "law and order judge" you mean one willing to throw away his career and reputation on a totalitarian fantasy, sure. Did you even read the case? Context matters, you know.

Methinks you doth protesteth too much. NY judges are only scared of certain other NY judges and are not too worried about appelate courts. Yeah, the scenario is quite possible.

So you envision a prosecutor bringing charges against Glenn Beck on a New York state criminal statute in a New York state criminal court? Under what section of applicable NY code?

 

[DiveCon]

If by "some prosecutor" you mean a Rule 15 dumbass with an incompetent supervisor and by "law and order judge" you mean one willing to throw away his career and reputation on a totalitarian fantasy, sure. Did you even read the case? Context matters, you know.

Methinks you doth protesteth too much. NY judges are only scared of certain other NY judges and are not too worried about appelate courts. Yeah, the scenario is quite possible.

So you envision a prosecutor bringing charges against Glenn Beck on a New York state criminal statute in a New York state criminal court? Under what section of applicable NY code?

this guy is just another moron
LOL