Does "freedom of speech" include the right to publicly plan to harm a person or race?

Question

...and, especially to attempt to convince others to harm persons or groups? Does it make a difference whether the speech involves something illegal, as is mob violence or discrimination in the workplace?

Answer 1

Not really--In Brandenburg v. US, the Supreme Court held that the government can't prohibit or punish speech which advocates the abstract belief that violence can be used as a way to effect change (as in "We need to start a revolution.") That type of speech is immune from government control under both the 1st and 14th amendments. However, speech may be criminally punished, if (1) the speech was intended to incite imminent lawless action (such as intending to incite violence toward a particular person/race) AND (2) the speech MUST be likely to produce the imminent lawless action. (This is like saying to an angry mob "Here are some knives, lets go stab that jerk right now.") Additionally, there is a category of speech called "fighting words" which is not considered protected speech. Fighting words are face to face epithets likely to provoke an average person to retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace. A person can be punished for such utterances, however no one has been punished in this country under the fighting words doctrine since 1942, so it may or may not be a viable rule.

Answer 2

the liberty of speech does not advise that any one gets to assert something at every time. that's approximately stability. The courts come to a determination whilst speech could be limited. working example, in Tinker v. Des Moines it replaced into written that students and instructors do no longer shed their Constitutional rights on the schoolhouse gate. even with the undeniable fact that it additionally mentioned that speech could be limited if it "motives a textile and substantial disruption of the academic technique." So, pupils (nor instructors) get to assert issues which will reason a disruption of the academic technique. Freedoms defined interior the invoice of Rights are no longer endless nor absolute. there is mostly a want for stability, and that's between the applications of the suitable courtroom: to make sure that stability.

Answer 3

Trick question. Speech, and "the right to publically harm a person" are two different things.

If I said, "Man, sometimes I'd like to kick a liberals *** so hard they walked with a limp for the next 50 years". That's freedom of speech.

If I said, "I plan on kicking the crap out of Joe the Liberal at noon on Tuesday", then do it, that would be assault. If I got a bunch of buddies to help, that would be incitement. There are also "hate speech" laws as well.

Answer 4

If you are publicly planning to harm another person this may fall out of the realm of freedom of speech. Harming another person is a crime and trying to get others to help you may be solicitation or conspiracy.

It is one thing to publicly speak out against a person or race, but quite another to entice others to do harm to another person.

Answer 5

Nope, you have freedom of speech as logn as you are not threatening anyone. You can insult them, poek fun at them, but you can't threaten to do them physical harm. I could write a letter to President Bush saying:

"Dear Mr. President,

You are a horrible president. You have only ruined this country. You should be impeached. You are an embarressment to the United States of America and have only hurt this nation. You are the only terrorist that we should be fighting."

But I couldn't send a letter to that dear old president saying:

"Dear Mr. President,

I'M GONNA KIIIIIIIIIIIIL YOU!"

See, Freedom of Speech.

Answer 6

Maybe, if it were to incite a riot or immediate threats to peace, yes, it would violate a State Law for public order. But, in general, without direct threats to an individual, I think that may be protected.

Answer 7

I guess not considering there is this whole category now called 'hate crimes' that actually tack more time on your sentence. So for example, let's say you beat up a person and you get convicted of assault and the judge finds out you called that person a 'homophobic name' (since yahoo won't let me actually say the words which is kind of another confirmation of what I'm saying), you would get extra time for saying that.

Answer 8

Mr.D love beat me to it. See, the KKK (klu klux klan) is indeed, legal (something that suprised me) But, now that I think about it. Wouldnt you rather know what they are up to, rather than them working in secret and having no clue what they are going to do or how far they are going to go.

Answer 9

no because freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want anywhere (except bomb in an airport) you want without being criticized, it only applies to verbal issues.

Answer 10

No, you cross into 'threats of bodily harm' at that point and it ceases to be 'freedom of speech'.