--- billbartlett at dodo.com.au wrote:
> At 8:09 PM -0800 6/11/02, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> >Well, in this country, merely abstract advocacy of
> illegal conduct
> >is constitutionally protected. I think that is as
> it should be.
>
> Except where such advocacy is directed to inciting
> or producing
> lawless action and is likely to incite or produce
> such action. That
> is to say that freedom of speech does not embrace
> the incitement to
> commit murder.
>
> "The offense known as breach of the peace embraces a
> great variety of
> conduct destroying or menacing public order and
> tranquility. It
> includes not only violent acts, but acts and words
> likely to produce
> violence in others. No one would have the hardihood
> to suggest that
> the principle of freedom of speech sanctions
> incitement to riot, or
> that religious liberty connotes the privilege to
> exhort others to
> physical attack upon those belonging to another
> sect. When clear and
> present danger of riot, disorder, interference with
> traffic upon the
> public streets, or other immediate threat to public
> safety, peace, or
> order appears, the power of the State to prevent or
> punish is obvious.
>
> -Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
> (USSC+)
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2