Incitement to Riot is not protected "free speech"

[bhikkhu]

...nor is it a core American value. Someone might inform Mr. Romney of that!

Having watched Romney's little speech to the press, as well as the miserable piece of video that led to Ambassador Stevens murder, there's not much more to say. I hope they prosecute the whole mess from both ends, and quickly.

For the record - editing this a day after posting, sometimes it helps to think a thing through "in public", so to speak, and the comments here lead me to think that I was wrong and that "incitement to riot" doesn't apply to the films. They deserve contempt and obscurity, but free speech applies nevertheless.

I think my first mistake was looking at a RW site where they posted the pictures of Stevens, at the point where he had been pulled from the building unconscious and was being carried through the streets in the rush to a hospital. Heartbreaking images cloud reason.

[jberryhill]

1. "Incitement to riot" has specific elements not met here

No, posting a video that gets people angry in some other country is not "incitement to riot" in any jurisdiction of the US.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

8. That is true...

The video does not explicitly or implicitly urge the viewer to take any action.

And the "fighting words" doctrine (in addition to not be recognized by any court that I know of) does not cover acts of violence directed at any person other than the one who utters the words.

[onenote]

9. +1

Nice, succinct summation.

[Zalatix]

31. Then we must change the standards of what it means to incite a riot.

Do I even need a sarcasm smiley for that? Probably. Some folks here would actually insist we do that.

[jberryhill]

33. Your failure to use a sarcasm tag....

...made me so angry, I went outside and smashed a bunch of windows. You are under arrest for incitement to riot.

[Zalatix]

34. Your response incited me to spew Pepsi at my monitor. Pay up!

[Nye Bevan]

2. Lots of constitutional lawyers posting today.

Thanks.

[Llewlladdwr]

3. How was this incitement to riot? NT

[bhikkhu]

5. Having watched the Innocence of Muslims video -

or most of it at least (its boneheaded stupid and hateful) - its hard to see any other purpose in it other than to incite riot or cause a violent response. That doesn't in the least condone the response, and murder is still murder, but the cause is not blameless either.

Though I don't know enough law to be able to talk about legal precedents or anything, so it winds up being just my thoughts on the tragedy.

[Llewlladdwr]

10. But you ARE condoning the violent response.

Placing blame for their actions on anyone but the rioters themselves is just letting them off the hook.

Doesn't matter how many times someone calls your mother a whore, you don't get the right to kill them.

[bhikkhu]

12. Someone murdered Stevens, and that's murder

fully prosecutable as murder. There's no getting off the hook.

Someone also put that person there, and put the idea in his head. How hard is that to understand? There were two crimes.

Incitement to riot comes to mind as the first one. Of course someone can call my mom whatever and that gives me no rights. But if I point out an individual in the middle of a large group, and I tell the group that the individual called all of their mothers whore, and spit on their religion or whatever, am I then blameless if the individual gets hurt? Can I just walk away with a smirk if he gets killed?

[egduj]

17. Just like the rape victim is partially to blame for dressing the way she dressed.

Gotcha

[bhikkhu]

20. The difference is in the status of victimhood

if one becomes an unwilling victim of violence due to someone's interpretation of any exercise of freedom, then there are no extenuating circumstances that void the case or that make the victim less innocent.

If, on the other hand, one makes another person the unwitting victim of mob violence, then the violence is one crime with its innocent victim, but the creator of the situation is a criminal as well.

Again, if you set up a situation where you incite a crowd upon an unwitting victim, you don't get to walk away with a smirk and claim innocence.

[Zalatix]

32. So if I put up a pro-Obama movie and 1,000 Teabaggers go on a murderous rampage..........

Yeah, I know, somehow, by the decree of Puff the Magic Dragon in his Strawberry Fields, it's "different" then.

[Llewlladdwr]

23. And that's why this isn't incitement.

I don't believe that the movie directed anyone to attack a US embassy. So the idea to do so must have come from somewhere else. That's where your incitement lies, not with the person who made the movie.

[JDPriestly]

27. As I understand it, there is some question as to whether the murder of Stevens and the

riot about the movie were directly related or whether they just happened to occur simultaneously or perhaps -- a third possibility -- the riot about the movie was a cover for the preparation for the murder and violent attack on the consulate. I think the facts on this are stilll unclear.

[arcane1]

4. Quite true. However, the incitement took place on Egyptian television...

thus the constitution doesn't apply.

[bhikkhu]

6. Romney invoked the constitution several times in his speech about it

as we should stand for for the values granted up by the principles of the Constitution, free speech and so forth. Which only makes his statements more bizarre and out of place.

[yawnmaster]

7. It's not an incitement to riot, it's an excuse to riot. eom

[msongs]

11. exactly, by people who are insecure in their belief system nt

[JDPriestly]

28. And we have no idea whether the killing of Stevens had to do with the riot and the movie

or perhaps with revenge by Ghadafi loyalists still hanging around -- or Al Qaeda as has been suggested by the President. So, we have to find out. Most likely, President Obama knows who to blame, but then again he could be mistaken.

[nlof]

13. Only incitement to riot was on Egyptian TV and by Egyptian religious leaders; probably same in Libya

I fail to see how posting a movie is incitement to riot. Similar critical art, movies or articles regarding Christianity or Judaism result in no such deaths...

The only incitement to riot is on side of Egyptian TV and Egyptian religious leaders, but this is nothing new in that corner of the world...
Those are the only ones to blame for the lynching mobs and killings.

[bhikkhu]

14. Perhaps true. But I am very curious as to who made the video and why

The murders will be prosecuted, and I hope quickly, but I'd like to know all about who made the video, who financed the video, and exactly how it was distributed. Maybe its just the happenstance of random hate such as is always to be found (in the minority) in human affairs, but if there is a puppetmaster we deserve to know.

[rustydog]

15. I also don't think our constitutional rights are guaranteed in a foreign land...

I could be wrong,but I don't think so.

[bhikkhu]

22. True, and I'll drop it now anyway - but Romney was the main point

If you listen to his little speech he criticised the Obama administration (to paraphrase) for "not defending an exercise of free speech granted to us by the principles of our constitution". My point was that not all types of speech are "free", and speech that leads directly to people getting killed may be questioned.

In any case Obama gave a better perspective this evening, pointing out that the embassy officials in Egypt were trying to calm things down in the middle of a very ugly situation by stating that they didn't support the video, and they should be cut some slack rather than second-guessed.

[joeglow3]

16. What if I, as a Catholic, killed an artist...

...because a different artist thought it a good idea to put a crucifix in a jar of piss or in elephant shit and call it art?

[egduj]

19. Or a christian killing some woman because he thought she practiced withcraft...

That's just ludicrous!

[joeglow3]

21. The fact that you had to go back over 100 years proves my point.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. Correct

Then again, showing a movie is not incitement to riot.

[reformist2]

24. I'm glad Obama is avoiding this topic - it deprives Repugs of the wedge issue they'd love to have.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. The 1st Amendment is irrelevant when we're not talking about the US. HOWEVER:

When people try to crap all over the 1st Amendment by saying, in essence, "you're not allowed to say something that might make someone else angry", they are wholly and utterly incorrect. Speech isn't prohibited just because it might make someone angry or offend them.



Sorry.

Someone standing up in front of a group of Fundamentalist Right Wing Christians and saying "I'm Gay", or two men kissing, might very easily be considered "incitement to riot". Sorry, there are no "hate speech" exceptions to the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment protects unpopular speech- that's the whole point. We want to go down the path of banning all speech that might piss someone off? Really?

Why there are so many people falling all over themselves today to attempt to "educate" the rest of us, incorrectly, on the myriad long lists of things apparently we're not allowed to say in this country, I have no fucking idea, but I will be damned if I'm going to sit back and allow the core values of the 1st Amendment to be misrepresented.

[LAGC]

29. I completely agree, my friend.

It is so disappointing seeing so many supposedly liberal people calling for OUR free speech rights to be restricted here. Why in the hell should we have to walk on egg-shells just because some foreigners get so easily offended over such stupid shit?

Unpopular speech is PRECISELY what the First Amendment is all about. I may not agree with it, but I will defend to the death their right to say it. Once we start down the path of censorship and telling people they can't say stuff that pisses other people off, where will it end?

Time to donate more money to the ACLU, I think, with such "liberal-minded" folk like these around here these days...

[JDPriestly]

26. Right. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

This is from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Schenck v. U.S.
(1919), setting limits on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the
First Amendment to the Constitution. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
Junior, wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would
not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a
panic."

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxshouti.html

The decision had to do with the Espionage Act of 1917 and the right of someone to object to the draft. I disagree with the conclusion of the Court in some respects, but nevertheless you can't incite people to a riot. You have to stick to peaceful demonstrations.

The Supreme Court could decide this to protect more or less speech. Hard to say.

Personally, I think a very literal and simple reading of the First Amendment protects a lot of speech and expression and that very, very little speech, expression, assembly should be restricted or even regulated. But that is my personal opinion. The wording of the First Amendment broadly protects the individual's right to free expression and assembly in my opinion.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. The related concepts of "incitement" & "Fighting Words" have been significantly narrowed since 1917

The SCOTUS in the last 100 years has taken a much broader view, than the WWI era judiciary, of the protections of the 1st Amendment.

You will note that similar statements to the Espionage Act, i.e. objecting to the draft, have been ruled to be protected speech in subsequent decisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[3] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protester's speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.
Incitement vs. fighting words

Incitement is a related doctrine, allowing the government to prohibit advocacy of unlawful actions if the advocacy is both intended to and likely to cause immediate breach of the peace. The modern standard was defined in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), where the Court reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader accused of advocating violence against racial minorities and the national government. The Ohio statute under which the conviction occurred was overturned as unconstitutional because "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."[4]

[JDPriestly]

38. Thanks. R.A.V. is the strongest decision on this in my opinion.

I have wondered why we aren't hearing more about litigation arising from the Occupy arrests. Have you followed that?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

35. i find your lack of logic...

disturbing.

sP

[cali]

36. There's a lot more to say.

first of all, it increasingly appears that the attack in Libya was not spontaneous and that the film was used to stir up shit and provide a diversion.

Secondly, there is little doubt that the piece of shit film is indeed protected speech.

[Yo_Mama]

37. This was protected speech

Examples of "incitement to riot" that would not be protected speech would be if I had a hatred for Sikhs, for some reason, and started a demonstration and then urged the mob to attack and kill Sikhs. Nothing about my speech would be illegal until I tried to get people to engage in criminal activity against Sikhs.

Criticism of any religion, political figure, religious founder, etc, is protected speech. All speech about ideas is protected speech.

The standard you are advocating here would set up the very worst, most irrational, most vicious people around the world and in our nation as the arbiters of what can and cannot be said, and so is a vicious (in the original meaning of the word, i.e. "full of vice&quot , degraded and ultimately barbaric standard. This is so because it allows those who are most prone to violence to be the winners in any debate.

Under your standard, if the Catholics of NYC were to riot when someone criticized, say, Cardinal Dolan, then the Catholics of NYC would be allowed to effectively criminalize any criticism of Cardinal Dolan. Is that the world you want to live in?

It does not take much intellect or thought to see how horribly this would play out. It would give every group with a strong feeling about something the incentive to devolve into violent riot as a way of engaging in public argument. Sadly, human history indicates that very few groups would abstain.

I'm shocked at your post. The idea about speech you are advocating is one I must speak against.