Opposing Views: Issues, Experts, Answers
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.



Sticky
Very touchy.
You're right tek. I would hate to be a judge on this one. I am vastly biased in favor of the Constitution, but there is precedent with regard to inciting "imminent lawless action" as pointed out in the article.
While I believe his speech was protected, sad as that is, I can see how you might say for a public figure to take the next step and post pictures, addresses, and phone numbers is crossing the line. Though I guess it's for the courts to decide whether that meets the definition of inciting "imminent lawless action."
All in all, as much as I despise his white supremacist views, I would be inclined to err in favor of free speech if I could not show the intent.
- LagerHead
June 25, 2009 3:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
err in favor of free speech
As difficult as it is for me to say this, I wholly agree.
- tek June 25, 2009 3:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
there is no base.
the courts decide what they want. There is no basis for truth. The people need to step up reform. people get shot everyday because they are poor. No one cares, Even though their only crime , is being poor, it is not an issue. that is outrageous. Then you have a responsible official doing illicit things. they should be killed. but you have a problem with that?
- jxzac June 25, 2009 3:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.