conlawprof  

RE: Imminence and Texting

Michael R. Masinter
Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:02:44 -0800

During class discussion students made both Mark's and Eugene's arguments. Another student suggested that differences in how we process speech and text may mediate the emotional response to each, making violence a less likely response to text than to speech and therefore offering less justification for treating insulting text as fighting words. Even if that were true, there is nothing in first amendment cases suggesting such a speech / text distinction, so I think Eugene's answer likely correct. Given the improbability of a case ever arising, I imagine the question will remain confined to class and list discussion.

Mike

Michael R. Masinter                      3305 College Avenue
Professor of Law                         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University             954.262.6151 (voice)
masin...@nova.edu                        954.262.3835 (fax)



Quoting "Scarberry, Mark" <mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu>:

I agree with Eugene, except that sometimes what may make words
"fighting" words is that they are heard by others. At least in terms of
whether a statement is likely to provoke a violent reaction, handing
someone a note using an expletive may be quite different from saying it
to him loudly in front of friends and family. Text messages and folded
notes may thus be less likely to constitute fighting words.

Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law


-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 3:55 PM
To: 'conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu'
Subject: RE: Imminence and Texting


        Seems to me it would be, just as handing an insulting note to
someone (in a context where he'd be expected to read it right away)
might constitute fighting words, no?

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-
boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Michael R. Masinter
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:15 AM
To: conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Imminence and Texting

I agree with Eugene that the electronic speech that was intended to
and was likely to incite a smash mob is unprotected speech.

My students asked a related question concerning the medium of
expression for fighting words.  Assuming fighting words still
constitute a category of unprotected speech, conventional
understanding requires that they be uttered face to face since the
rationale for excluding them from protected speech is the likelihood
that they will trigger an immediate emotion driven violent response.
Under that rationale, it makes no sense to treat traditional written
communications as fighting words; reason has plenty of time to prevail

over emotion before the reader responds with violence.  But how should

fighting words doctrine treat IMs sent to a person with a laptop
sitting in the adjacent seat in class?  And how about the student who
is two seats away, or perhaps in the next row, or across the aisle?
Can written text be fighting words when the writer is within reach of
the reader when the reader first sees them?


Michael R. Masinter                      3305 College Avenue
Professor of Law                         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University             954.262.6151 (voice)
masin...@nova.edu                        954.262.3835 (fax)



Quoting "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu>:

>    I'd think that if the message is intended to spur imminent
lawless
> action -- say, a tweet to a dispersed group of protesters urging
> them to start throwing rocks at police -- and is likely to spur such

> action, it would be unprotected under Brandenburg.  Twittering is
> really no different here from in-person speech of the classic
> speech-in-front-of-the-corn-dealer's-home variety.  Nor is it
> necessary that imminent lawless action actually occur, so long as it

> was intended and likely.
>
>    Eugene
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-
>> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Silverburg, Sanford R
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 8:59 AM
>> To: conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu
>> Subject: Imminence and Texting
>>
>> A question arose today in my Con Law class while discussing
>> Brandenburg, albeit hypothetical.  Texting and twittering allows
>> for immediate receipt of a communication via electronic means and
>> can easily include apparent intent and specificity.  There is less
>> of a problem in determining the receiver of the message than
>> accurately identifying the sender.  Nevertheless, 1) if the message

>> delivered does immediately result in the lawless action advocated,
>> and 2) the  sender of the message can be identified, would his/her
>> speech be protected under Brandenburg?
>>
>> Sanford Silverburg
>>
>> Sanford R. Silverburg, Ph.D
>> Professor
>> Department of History and Politics
>> Catawba College
>> Salisbury, NC 28144
>> US
>> ssil...@catawba.edu
>> _______________________________________________
>> To post, send message to Conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
>> unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
>> as private.
>> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;

>> people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
>> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
> unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
> as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that

> are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>



_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.


_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.




_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.