Law Commons^™

January 6, Ambiguously Inciting Speech, And The Overt-Acts Rule, Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

A prosecution of Donald Trump for his role in the January 6 attack on the Capitol would have to address whether the First Amendment protects the inflammatory remarks he made at the “Stop the Steal” rally. A prosecution based solely on the content of Trump’s speech—whether for incitement, insurrection, or obstruction—would face serious constitutional difficulties under Brandenburg v. Ohio’s dual requirements of intent and likely imminence. But a prosecution need not rely solely on the content of Trump’s speech. It can also look to Trump’s actions: his order to the remove the magnetometers from the entrances to the rally and …

The Arms Dealer Who Cries, :“First Amendment”, Gustave Passanante

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Assumptions About Terrorism And The Brandenburg Incitement Test, Christina E. Wells

Faculty Publications

The incitement standard announced in Brandenburg v. Ohio is one of the most familiar tests in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. It prohibits government officials from punishing advocacy of illegal activity unless it is directed and likely to imminently incite such activity. Brandenburg's standard has become a pillar of free speech law, allowing government officials to protect public safety by punishing only speech intended and likely to create an imminent danger of harm, while protecting even the most abhorrent of speakers from suppression of their speech simply because government officials fear or dislike it. Terrorist advocacy, however, is putting pressure on …

Inciting Terrorism On The Internet: The Limits Of Tolerating Intolerance, Amos N. Guiora

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

The Internet is a limitless platform for information and data sharing. It is, in addition, however, a low-cost, high-speed dissemination mechanism that facilitates the spreading of hate speech, including violent and virtual threats. Indictment and prosecution for social media posts that transgress from opinion to incitable hate speech are appropriate in limited circumstances. Several real-world examples discussed here help to explore when limitations on Internet-based hate speech are appropriate.

In October 2015, twenty thousand Israelis joined a civil lawsuit filed against Facebook in the Supreme Court for the State of New York. Led by the civil rights organization Shurat HaDin, …

District Court, Nassau County, People V. Zedner, Jonathan Kirchner

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brandenburg And The United States' War On Incitement Abroad: Defending A Double Standard, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

While it is perfectly legitimate for the United States to attempt to persuade foreign citizens and media not to engage in advocacy of violent acts, the administration's rhetoric suggests that the United States expects foreign governments to take action against speech that would be protected by the First Amendment in the United States. What explains this apparent hypocrisy? Is this simply another example of the United States touting democracy at home while supporting despotism abroad? Or is the Brandenburg incitement standard so socially and culturally contingent that it is not appropriate for export, at least to the Arab Middle East? …

The Banality Of Evil And The First Amendment, W. Bradley Wendel

Michigan Law Review

In the late spring and early summer of 1994, hundreds of thousands of people in Rwanda - an estimated ten percent of the population - were brutally murdered by their fellow citizens, generally for the "crime" of belonging to the socially and economically dominant, but numerically minority Tutsi ethnic group. The slaughter followed a systematic propaganda campaign coordinated by the Rwandan government, dominated by members of the Hutu ethnic group, who had long harbored grievances against Tutsis. The campaign demonized Tutsis as "devils," stirred up fear among the largely rural and poor Hutu population by propagating false information about a …

Discussing The First Amendment, Christina E. Wells

Michigan Law Review

Since the First Amendment's inception, Americans have agreed that free expression is foundational to our democratic way of life. Though we agree on this much, we have rarely agreed on much else regarding the appropriate parameters of free expression. Is the First Amendment absolute or does it allow some regulation of speech? Should the First Amendment protect offensive speech, pornography, flag-burning? Why do we protect speech - to promote the search for truth, to promote self-governance, or to protect individual autonomy?2 History is rife with disagreements regarding these issues to which there are no definitive answers. Certainly, the text of …

Attacking Brandenburg With History: Does The Long-Term Harm Of Biased Speech Justify A Criminal Statute Suppressing It?, Anuj C. Desai

Federal Communications Law Journal

Book Review: Destructive Messages: How Hate Speech Paves the Way for Harmful Social Movements, Alexander Tsesis, New York: New York University Press, 2002, 246 pages.

A review of Alexander Tsesis's Destructive Messages: How Hate Speech Paves the Way for Harmful Social Movements, New York University Press, 2002. At one level, Alexander Tsesis's thesis is simply one in a long line of arguments about the need to regulate racist speech. Yet on another level, it is fundamentally different from much American literature on "hate speech" because Tsesis draws on a broad historical swath, and because he contends that the United States …

Brandenburg And The United States' War On Incitement Abroad: Defending A Double Standard, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

UF Law Faculty Publications

While it is perfectly legitimate for the United States to attempt to persuade foreign citizens and media not to engage in advocacy of violent acts, the administration's rhetoric suggests that the United States expects foreign governments to take action against speech that would be protected by the First Amendment in the United States. What explains this apparent hypocrisy? Is this simply another example of the United States touting democracy at home while supporting despotism abroad? Or is the Brandenburg incitement standard so socially and culturally contingent that it is not appropriate for export, at least to the Arab Middle East? …

Incitement To Violence On The World Wide Web: Can Web Publishers Seek First Amendment Refuge?, Lonn Weissblum

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

The purpose of this comment is to analyze the potential First Amendment implications of the appearance of bomb-making instructions on the Web in the United States. Moreover, this comment will ultimately consider the notion that "because Brandenburg allows consideration of all the unique characteristics of the Web, there is no reason to formulate new jurisprudence merely because of new technology." Part II examines the seminal cases in the area of speech action, including Schenck v. United States, Hess v. Indiana, and Brandenburg v. Ohio, and the adulations and criticisms that resulted from these cases. Part III discusses the civil cases …

Recalibrating The Cost Of Harm Advocacy: Getting Beyond Brandenburg, S. Elizabeth Wilborn Malloy, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.