Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded venue is not protected under Free Speech.
I know that’s the famous example, but you’re actually wrong. It’s only not protected if there’s no fire, the person yelling it believes there is no fire, and the person yelling it is doing so to cause a panic or imminent lawless action. Speech protections in the US are extremely broad, and most of the exact lines and contours have been defined in court, often in cases involving the ACLU, the KK, or both (specifically in the form of the ACLU defending the KKK, which is where many of the lines as regards protests were determined).
Name the criminal statute he should be charged with violating.
Agreed that he likely does not have a 1st amendment defense. But you still need a specific criminal statute to charge him with. I am unaware of any that he has likely violated with his xenophobic remarks
Demagoguery that targets a marginalized group is an American tradition. It is unlikely that he committed any crime
Ohio could possibly sue him civilly because of the bomb threats that caused them to shut down schools. That’s the best I got.
If anyone is hurt over this, then they likely have standing for a civil suit (see Alex Jones).
Criminal it’s definitely more tricky. Trump will likely get away with telling his followers to storm the capitol, so I doubt “eating cats and dogs” comes close to the same standard.
Once upon a time, admitting to something like this would have been an impeachable offense. But that’s long sailed as something Congress would fairly enforce.
Trump will likely get away with telling his followers to storm the capitol
Because he didn’t. He very carefully didn’t. And 1A protections are extremely broad and extremely strong. Pretty much anything short of “You guys, go storm the capitol right now and overturn the election!” is going to be protected speech, and he didn’t say that. He carefully avoided saying that, intentionally.
What they’ll get him on as far as the attack (if anything) will be if he was involved in planning and staging it on the back end - if for example he was coordinating with people who were directly instrumental in shifting it from a protest at the steps of the capitol to an attack on the capitol in the hours, days, or weeks beforehand. Because his speech was definitely 1A protected.
Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded venue is not protected under Free Speech.
I know that’s the famous example, but you’re actually wrong. It’s only not protected if there’s no fire, the person yelling it believes there is no fire, and the person yelling it is doing so to cause a panic or imminent lawless action. Speech protections in the US are extremely broad, and most of the exact lines and contours have been defined in court, often in cases involving the ACLU, the KK, or both (specifically in the form of the ACLU defending the KKK, which is where many of the lines as regards protests were determined).
ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)
Fucking autocorrect? sigh Fixing it…
This isn’t even close to the other, actual stochastic terrorism they’ve done before.
If they were going to get charged for it, it shouldn’t be this one.
Now, whoever runs the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire account, that feels like an actual crime.
The cat thing should disqualify him as president because he’s blatantly lying. But it’s not a crime.
Sure. But this is not that.
Name the criminal statute he should be charged with violating.
Agreed that he likely does not have a 1st amendment defense. But you still need a specific criminal statute to charge him with. I am unaware of any that he has likely violated with his xenophobic remarks
Demagoguery that targets a marginalized group is an American tradition. It is unlikely that he committed any crime
Ohio could possibly sue him civilly because of the bomb threats that caused them to shut down schools. That’s the best I got.
If anyone is hurt over this, then they likely have standing for a civil suit (see Alex Jones).
Criminal it’s definitely more tricky. Trump will likely get away with telling his followers to storm the capitol, so I doubt “eating cats and dogs” comes close to the same standard.
Once upon a time, admitting to something like this would have been an impeachable offense. But that’s long sailed as something Congress would fairly enforce.
Because he didn’t. He very carefully didn’t. And 1A protections are extremely broad and extremely strong. Pretty much anything short of “You guys, go storm the capitol right now and overturn the election!” is going to be protected speech, and he didn’t say that. He carefully avoided saying that, intentionally.
What they’ll get him on as far as the attack (if anything) will be if he was involved in planning and staging it on the back end - if for example he was coordinating with people who were directly instrumental in shifting it from a protest at the steps of the capitol to an attack on the capitol in the hours, days, or weeks beforehand. Because his speech was definitely 1A protected.
Conspiracy to start a riot.
What are the enumerated elements of that per the statute, and how did Vance violate them?
He likely does. Pretty much anything short of directly inciting an immediate panic or imminent lawless action is protected.