> 1) Is it legal for the lawyer of a terrorist to publicly pass along her
> client's request to end a cease fire? Apparently,
> it's illegal for the lawyer of a mobster to announce that said mobster
> wants someone whacked.
-In the mobster's lawyer's case, there might be reason -to think that the announcement fell in the unprotected -and perhaps in the criminal category because the -mobster has an organization that might (it could be -argued) construe the announcement as incitement or -orders to whack the guy forthwith. But if only the -unorganized have freedom of speech, what about the -Communists? Or the Green Party, for that matter?
The issue here is really intent and knowledge; (1) intent that your words will lead to the death of those mentioned; (2) knowledge that there are specific individuals who will act on those words. Admittedly it gets into a greyer area if the speaker calling for the "hit" doesn't know who will take action, but is very sure that someone will take him up on the call to kill. The existence of organization and leadership, where members are expected to carry out instructions of the leader makes the knowledge of likely consequences of speech clearer.
>In this connection, the relevant analogy is not the
>underground railroad, but John Brown's raid on
>Harper's Ferry. Brown is still widely considered a
>hero. If he had had a lawyer, and the lawyer had acted
>to say something that supported his armed struggle
>against slavery, would he be justified in doing so
>even if the speech was unlawful?
Justified is different from lawful. Armed violence is where you move from law to challenging power, and at that point talking about the law becomes a bit irrelevent.
But that's where I return to juries-- I'm a fan of jury nullification and a proper jury would hopefully free a John Brown in the proper circumstance.
Nathan Newman