On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 07:34:03AM +0000, jim bell wrote: > On Saturday, October 17, 2020, 02:38:15 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 07:53:13AM +0000, jim bell wrote: > [snip] > >> One lesson I learned was a Supreme Court case named Brandenburg v. Ohio > >> (1969). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio> > >>>From that decision:> > >> "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 in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from > >> incitement to imminent lawless action.3 " [end of quote]>> >> Did I: > >> 'advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety' of violence 'as > >> a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform'; ? > > >By my reading, you are skirting the line. > No, the line isn't 'skirted'. > Okay, I will try to explain it more clearly. To a first approximation, the > principle of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) is that the US Supreme Court decided > that the First Amendment (free speech) protects advocacy of 'crime' and > 'violence' EXCEPT in what I call a 'riot-type' situations. > https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 and > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Ah yes, now I can see I got it back to front, and therefore incorrectly. Thank you for clarifying my error. > It should go without saying that I intend to avoid all "riot-type" > situations, and if caught in one, I certainly won't be doing advocacy! <wry> :) </>
