How about quote the specific language which you claim "was intended to incite
violence". Or, at least, cite it with sufficient specificity so that we know
what you are talking about. So far, we don't. Cite the website, show the text.
Also, you said, " Hate Speech isn't protected by any constitutional provision
or amendment and it's a federal crime to cross state lines to incite violence."
I'm glad to see you so brazenly invent foolish legal claims. I am unaware that
the term "hate speech" has ANY consistent definition, let alone a legal
definition sufficiently specific to be able to conclude that it "isn't
protected by any constitutional provision or amendment".
Actually, whatever you think "hate speech" is, it's almost certainly protected
by the 1st Amendment. See the Supreme Court case, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
"Per curiam opinion[edit]The per curiam majority opinion overturned the Ohio
Criminal Syndicalism statute, overruled Whitney v. California,[3] and
articulated a new test – the "imminent lawless action" test – for judging what
was then referred to as "seditious speech" under the First Amendment:
…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."
× If you genuinely believe " it's a federal crime to cross state lines to
incite violence.", you need to cite specific precedent which applies your
choice of terms, "incite violence" to a 1st-Amendment guaranteed speech. As
per Brandenburg v. Ohio, you are on very thin rhetorical ice.
Jim Bell
From: Razer <g...@riseup.net>
His planned talk was intended to incite violence against so-called
"undocumented" students, as stated on his own website. Hate Speech isn't
protected by any constitutional provision or amendment and it's a federal crime
to cross state lines to incite violence. Go fish for some other bullshit
rationale "Libertarian".
Rr
On 02/02/2017 03:14 PM, jim bell wrote:
From: Joshua Case <jwc...@gmail.com>
More to the point he was seeking right to assembly, it wasn't his speech that
was suppressed. His views are well know, his sentiment registers broadly. He
was denied assembly. Seems reasonable.
Your comment is confusing and vague. I assume you were talking about Milo
Yiannopolis (sp?). University of California (including the Berkeley site) is
presumably public property. The 1st Amendment likely applies, at least as
strongly there as elsewhere. If you are saying it "seems reasonable" for him
being "denied assembly", is there any other public property where you WOULDN'T
agree that it would be "reasonable" for him being "denied assembly"? I think
it's long-established that government officials generally cannot deny people
the right to speak on public property (at a time and in a manner that anyone
else would be allowed to speak).
Somebody will probably argue that "public officials", per se, didn't attempt
to obstruct Milo Y's right to be there, and speak. Well, no, the rioters did
that. But I think that for the government to allow rioters to do things that
would be illegal for government people to do, in itself would be a
Constitutional problem. After all, the 14th Amendment guarantees "equal
protection of the laws", and some of those laws deal with the right to
"assemble" on "public property". Failure to use government police for to
enforce Milo Y's right to assemble and speak would amount to a violation of his
14th Amendment rights.
Jim Bell
