Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,099
- 245
- Thread starter
- #141
Wrong. The correct answer, under current constitutional law, is 'yes':
Brandenburg test
in constitutional law
Standard established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. The standard developed determined that speech advocating the use of force or crime could only be proscribed where two conditions were satisfied: (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) the advocacy is also likely to incite or produce such action.
Brandenburg test | LII / Legal Information Institute
...and..
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
Fighting words - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My advice to you,
learn your Constitution, or at least learn how to research constitutional questions, before you go around trying to convince people how much more about the document you know than they do.
The correct answer is no because, even under the Brandenburg foul up, unless your intent is to urge me to commit a specific illegal act, you are not responsible. You even posted the explanation, yet failed to read it.
You said the answer was 'no'. Period. Since I've proven the answer can be 'yes' in some cases,
'no' is the wrong answer.
No, I asked if I am inflamed by something you say can I blame my violent reaction on you. The answer to that is always no.