the first amendment in a time of crisis

[Christine A Corcos]

According to Brandenburg "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral
propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is
not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to
such action." If I read this correctly the speaker must "advocate", and
there must be a clear and immediate link between the advocacy and the
violence. If that's right, then I have trouble making the link between the
statements made by the speakers in these cases and an  urging toward
action, especially since if I understand the news accounts the listeners
were impelled to do the exact opposite of what the speakers were
discussing. Just my deux sous, from beautiful, sunny Louisiana.





Robin Charlow <LAWRDC at MAIL1.HOFSTRA.EDU>@listserv.ucla.edu> on 04/03/2002
12:05:42 PM

Please respond to Discussion list for con law professors
      <CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu>

Sent by:  Discussion list for con law professors
      <CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu>


To:   CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
cc:    (bcc: Christine A Corcos/ccorcos/LSU)

Subject:  Re: the first amendment in a time of crisis


"Incitement" describes a speaker who urges others to commit unlawful acts.
To characterize a speaker as "inciting" a riot because her views are so
unpopular as to provoke non-law-abiding citizens to take violent action is
both doctrinally inaccurate and very disturbing.
-- Tobias

Can't one incite a riot without explicity urging the commission of unlawful
acts?  In my dictionary, "incite" means "to move to action", "stir up",
"spur on", or "urge on", in that order.  If the words moved others to act,
whether or not they included an admonition do so, and whether or not they
were intended to do so, it would seem they incited.