[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Another way to frame it:
The First Amendment protects citizens from punitive government action as a consequence of that citizen’s speech and/or writing.[/quote]
Aaah, but see, this is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights. 1A protects citizens from being prevented from speaking or writing their views and opinions. [/quote]
Absolutely not.
“Congress shall make no law…”
No law can affect the ability to speak. A law can, however, criminalize speech–that is, punish speech after it’s been spoken. And that is exactly what the First Amendment addresses. The writings of the founders make this abundantly clear.
So: the First Amendment prohibits legal punishment for speech. Brandenburg allows for legal punishment of speech in certain circumstances, namely when public safety necessitates it. Brandenburg, in other words, sets boundaries to a right which is presented without boundaries in the Bill of Rights.
A gun control bill would be as legitimate as Brandenburg. Which is not to say it will be effective or smart–but it will be exactly as legitimate.
Defamation, as an aside, is not a crime.
[/quote]
Stop it with this Brandenburg nonsense. Even if you are running with the two-pronged test used by the USSC:
(1) speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and (2) it is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
…Brandenburg is STILL an expansion of free speech.
You are straining like a lame mule pulling a plow in heavy sod to try and make what amounts to an extremely thin case for extrapolating Brandenburg as some kind of tool for justifying 2nd Amendment limits.
Quit before the egg on your face gets so thick you’ll need a shovel to clean up with.[/quote]
The argument is solid and you know that it is. And furthermore you’re dancing around the edges of it on the fantastically irrelevant grounds that the alternative–Ohio’s censorship law–was harsher on speech rights and was struck down–a point of whose total irrelevance I hope you’re aware.
That Brandenburg protects inflammatory speech is absolutely superfluous–inflammatory speech or speech that advocates violence, as a subset of speech, was already protected under the First Amendment. The element of Brandenburg that is relevant to us in this thread is the abridgment of particular kinds of speech–namely, the criminalization of speech intended to incite imminent lawless action–which would otherwise seem to fall under the broader and Constitutionally protected category of speech in general. I’ll lay it out as a logical argument and see if you can refute any of it:
[b]
-
The Bill of Rights prohibits government from “abridging the freedom of speech.”
-
Brandenburg v. Ohio allows the government to criminalize–to abridge–speech that might incite imminent lawless action.
-
Speech that might incite imminent lawless action is a particular subset of speech in general, which is protected without elaboration by the First Amendment.
-
Therefore, Brandenburg v. Ohio curtails a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the name of public safety. It sets a boundary where none was set by the Founders.
[/b]
[/quote]
Re-posted so that Push or anybody who wants to can address it.[/quote]
Re-posted so that smh or anybody who wants to can address this.
I don’t know if it’s my delayed posting status or what that causes you and others to miss my responses or not but here we go again:
Re: Brandenburg: The USSC held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
For this to work for you, smh, you will have to admit that the government cannot restrict our rights to keep and bear weapons unless those weapons are directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
I could own fully auto weapons, Stinger missiles, tanks, AR-15’s dressed up in “assault weapon” fashion, and even a truckload of Glock pistols with 16 round magazines, etc., etc., but if I don’t get in the imminent lawless action inciting business then the Brandenburg-eers of this world need quit waving their piece of paper from 1969 around like it’s some kind of trump card or sumthin.
If you don’t concede that then Brandenburg absolutely works against what you’re trying to do here and works FOR my argument. [/quote]
You do not understand the argument.
Brandenburg, in the name of public safety, abridges a right protected by the First Amendment. The details of the abridgment–that the speech must directly incite imminent lawless action–are particular to the right being abridged. The point is that an abridgment is being outlined and condoned.
Likewise, an abridgment, in the name of public safety, of Second Amendment rights–obviously not the same as Brandenburg in the details, but an abridgment nonetheless–would be as legitimate as is Brandenburg.
Again:
-
The Bill of Rights prohibits government from “abridging the freedom of speech.”
-
Brandenburg v. Ohio allows the government to criminalize–to abridge–speech that might incite imminent lawless action.
-
Speech that might incite imminent lawless action is a particular subset of speech in general, which is protected without elaboration by the First Amendment.
-
Therefore, Brandenburg v. Ohio curtails a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the name of public safety. It sets a boundary where none was set by the Founders.
[/b]
Find the misstep in this logical argument. If you cannot, then you concede that Constitutionally protected rights may be abridged in the name of public safety.