>Btw, W & L aren't "inciting" murder as the law or the
>English language understands the term, they are merely
>defending and advocating it abstractly. Incitement is
>speech calculated in the circumstances to bring about
>the act immanently. "Kill that kike!" (pointing to me
>while at the head of lynch mob) is incitement (and
>unprotected). "I think Hitler was right about the
>Jews," is merely astract advocacy (and protected).
>That's the line drawn in part by Brandenburg v. Ohio
>and the Post-Dennis CPUSA cases.I think the SCt got
>that one just about right.
So, "kill that particular Jew!" is incitement, but "Kill all Jews!" is just fine. Just "abstract advocacy". Trouble is, as Hitler demonstrated, it isn't necessarily just abstract, they didn't think he was serious, but he WAS.
I prefer to take people at their word. It might be safer. If someone says that people should be murdered, my feeling is that they should be taken seriously and imprisoned. They might be just talking "abstract", but loose talk costs lives.
There's no rights without responsibility and the right to freedom of speech is no exception. Maybe the fools would think about the consequences of what they say if the consequences were a bit more immediate and personal.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas