First of all if you say yes or maybe, then the founding fathers had the 1st Amendment wrong.
In my opinion, a yes or maybe answer simply takes the heat off of the people that commit the crimes such as assult, or murder in response to such speech.
People don't realize that when you start saying stuff like "some people are simply not capable of restraining themselves, and so the 'speaker' must be punished when provoking violence with his speech," it just dumps all over The US Constitution and is beginning to limit it, and to what end?
2007-09-21 06:55:49 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Hmmm. Yelling fire in a crowded theater verses hanging nooses in a tree in a crowded black neighborhood... How can you not see the difference?
2007-09-22 12:17:22 · update #1
I think you nailed it, by saying that the speech caused the violence is doing just that - taking the responsibility off of the person who committed the violent act.
Our society has gotten good at blaming other for our own actions, and it shows . . . self responsibility is dwindling . . .
so, no - I do not think that speech should be criminal if it results in violence.
2007-09-21 07:03:26 · answer #1 · answered by vinsa1981 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The 1st Amendment allows for free speech. But, as the Supreme Court clarified, you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said in Schenck v. U.S., "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
*goz, it goes back further, to 1919
2007-09-21 07:08:41 · answer #2 · answered by Mr G 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No one who is speaking should be doing it to provoke any kind of violence as that is an invitation to violence and breaking of the peace !
Any group of people accepting such kind of forms of speeches can be charged with conspiracy to whatever it get out of that !?
By the way , had you seeing how O.J. Simpson was forced to scream improper words at the presence of dangerous criminals and now is the one been charged wrongfully ?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
2007-09-21 07:06:19 · answer #3 · answered by Orestes A 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not just speech that results in violence -- it's speech that intends violence, and intends imminent violence.
That exception is far narrower than the one you describe. The person inciting violence must intend to cause violence, and be actively trying to make someone else commit violence.
That makes them liable under the standard accomplice liability theory for any crime -- there being no difference under the law between ordering someone to commit a crime, and cheering them on as they commit a crime.
The key is the intent of the speaker -- absent such intent, it is very difficult to hold someone culpable for mere words.
2007-09-21 07:04:56 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Look at Brandenberg v. Ohio, 1969: the clear and present danger of Imminent lawlessness
and
Fighting words: Cohen v. California 1971
with restriction under: RAV v. City of St Paul, 505 us 377, 1992
2007-09-21 07:06:44 · answer #5 · answered by goz1111 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My Fellow Gewesians, enable me start up of with the aid of pointing out for sure that enjoyed ones Violence is a political delusion. this is a properly-undemanding actuality that fewer than 5% of call-outs of government over 'enjoyed ones violence' contain any quite violence, and positively, in the main populous state of Australia, the police lay costs in in basic terms a million% of such call-outs. those are government issued figures, with the aid of the way. Now you %. up the ball....
2016-11-06 01:26:18 · answer #6 · answered by gurucharan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it shouldn't, but I also don't think that all violence should be illegal either. If someone insults your mother, and you punch him in the mouth, I see no reason for the government to be involved- that should just be a wash. Why are we, as a society, so afraid of violence?
2007-09-21 07:07:07 · answer #7 · answered by Beardog 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hate speech laws are a violation of the 1st amendment!
2007-09-21 06:59:44 · answer #8 · answered by Coasty 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Speech isn't criminal. What violence that may erupt later, is.
2007-09-21 06:59:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
If you say "we should beat up bob," or even "I really really want to beat up bob and i hope he gets beat up, and in fact, I think I will beat bob up later" and you don't actually, personally go and beat up bob, you have done nothing illegal, and if you get charged with something even though you had nothing to do with bob's actual beating, we shall have to change the name of this country to "Nazi Germany".
2007-09-21 07:04:12 · answer #10 · answered by J E 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋