Brewington, True Threats Not Free Speech

[rambone]

I've never understood how this jives with "Congress shall make no law..."

It seems to me that if you want to create a bunch of categories of illegal speech, you need a new constitution. The current one doesn't allow it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I've never understood how this jives with "Congress shall make no law..."

It seems to me that if you want to create a bunch of categories of illegal speech, you need a new constitution. The current one doesn't allow it.

I can understand your point, but it seems that it is not so much a matter of speech as preemptively confessing to a crime, assuming that it is a credible threat.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I've never understood how this jives with "Congress shall make no law..."

Because criminal behavior--incitement, defamation, fraud, treason, inter alia-- is not protected speech as per the harm principle.

 

[rambone]

Because criminal behavior--incitement, defamation, fraud, treason, inter alia-- is not protected speech as per the harm principle.

I checked again, and didn't see the harm principle in the constitution.

Treason, they had the sense to write down.

The framers seem to have forgotten to write down defamation and hurt feelings.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The framers seem to have forgotten to write down defamation and hurt feelings.

What are you talking about?

Libel, slander was illegal in all thirteen states.

Who is telling you that criminal behavior is protected speech? Firefly? L. Neil Smith book? What founding document of INGO are you citing?

I checked again, and didn't see the harm principle in the constitution.

You should re-read Schenck then. If you do not study, you cannot learn.

 

[rambone]

You should re-read Schenck then. If you do not study, you cannot learn.

The court ruled that freedom of speech does not exist during times of war. I call shenanigans. It was one of the worst decisions in the last century -- which says a lot.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The case law (outside Schenck) is replete with historical examples that not all speech was considered protected at the time of the framing.

 

[Fargo]

I've never understood how this jives with "Congress shall make no law..."

It seems to me that if you want to create a bunch of categories of illegal speech, you need a new constitution. The current one doesn't allow it.

I've never understood how the Indiana General Assembly somehow morphed into being Congress....

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I've never understood how the Indiana General Assembly somehow morphed into being Congress

The Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[rambone]

I've never understood how the Indiana General Assembly somehow morphed into being Congress....

Reply #9 took the conversation there.

 

[Fargo]

The Fourteenth Amendment.

Ah yes, where instead of saying:

The first 9 amendments to the federal constitution now apply to the states.

They instead said:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Clear as mud! How prescient of them to know that it would only take 60-140 years for everyone to figure out that those two things mean the same thing with aborted babies thrown in....

 

[24Carat]

You folks do make INGO an interesting place to play ! Thank you all !

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ah, but the Framers did say in the C.R. that the Bill of Rights applied to the states. In fact they could not stop talking about it as the civil rights violations in the South transpired daily.

 

[Fargo]

Ah, but the Framers did say in the C.R. that the Bill of Rights applied to the states. In fact they could not stop talking about it as the civil rights violations in the South transpired daily.

Framers of what? The 14th amendment? If that was what they were saying, they sure picked a helluva a way to do it... I personally prefer the text of the amendment over what anyone has read into the congressional record. Legislative history has become a fun little way for individual legislators to try to make words mean things they don't (see damn near everything Joe Biden ever put on the record). Legislate what you mean or don't do it at all.

I get that a lot of what constituted "due process of law" at the time of the ratification of the BoR is also enumerated specifically in the BoR. You know, things like the right to a jury (which last I checked is one of the things the SCOTUS still claims isn't "incorporated".)

Either the framers of the 14th were doldering idiots, or they actually meant what they wrote. True due process issues, like juries, double jeopardy, self-incrimination were now applied to the states. Non-PROCEDURAL stuff, like the 1st and 2nd amendment, were not.

The self-contradictory abomination of "substantive process" and its bastard child "incorporation" have done more violence to the actual words of the 14th amendment than damn near anything else.

 

[ModernGunner]

Agree with the Court's decision. There is a difference between 'rhetoric' (or 'hyperbole' as the Court noted) and a 'true threat'.

And Brewington did take specific actions that showed intent. Following the Doctor to a different hearing proved Brewington wasn't just 'venting', but stalking as well. Displaying a picture of one of the victim's families (don't remember if that was the Judge or Doctor) is another action. How did Brewington obtain such a picture? Posting the addresses of the Judge's and Doctor's addresses, mortgage information, etc. all show that Brewington took specific actions to obtain that information.

As an example, a perpetrator confronts you openly displaying a gun and states, "I'm going to shoot (kill, etc.) you if... xyz". It's not 'required' that the perpetrator actually shoot you before you should consider it a 'true threat'. That would be ludicrous beyond any sensibility. His actions of confronting you and displaying the weapon are sufficient.

 

[steveh_131]

Surely the framers never intended for threats to be covered under the first amendment.

Just like they never intended for assault rifles to be covered under the second.

Common sense regulations.

 

[rambone]

The founding fathers would have never tolerated True Threats.