<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: Al-Q Honcho Hit</title></head><body> <div>At 8:09 PM -0800 6/11/02, andie nachgeborenen wrote:</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Well, in this country, merely abstract advocacy of illegal conduct is constitutionally protected. I think that is as it should be.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>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.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote>"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.</blockquote> <blockquote><br></blockquote> <blockquote><x-tab>        </x-tab>-Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (USSC+)</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Bill Bartlett</div> <div>Bracknell Tas</div> </body> </html>