Freedom of speech and terrorism

[naser386]

Hi,
I need an accurate answer please. Someone is arguing that defending terrorism by speech only not action is legal. Is it true? Is it legal and protected by the first amendment or is it considered in a way supporting the terrorists?

Thanks

[friedo]

That depends on what you mean by “defending terrorism by speech.” If you mean someone saying “I think terrorism is groovy and bin Laden is way cool” then it is certainly protected speech. On the other hand, if you’re talking about aiding and abetting actual terrorists or participating in a terrorist act in some way, then it’s not.

[Cillasi]

If by “speech only” you mean inciting terrorism, my guess is it’s just as against the law as inciting a riot. I’m sure there’s a word (besides inciting) for encouraging people to commit unlawful acts - I just can’t think of it right now.
Anyone?

[Hamlet]

The Supreme Court case of Brandenburg v. Ohio is the seminal case in discussing free speech in the realm of potential criminal incitement. Brandenburg dealt with an Ohio statute that made it illegal to: “advocate . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.” In striking down that statute, SCOTUS said:

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. As we said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297 -298 (1961), "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.

Basically, what the Supreme Court is saying is that advocating violence is protected, unless it is directed to produce imminent lawless action, and is likely to produce such action. Unless the speech somehow is meant to, and does, directly incites the terrorists to action, it should be protected.

That, of course, is the very simplified answer. I’d be happy to get into more detail if you wish.

[beajerry]

Hey, let’s ask John Ashcroft! I bet he’ll know!

[naser386]

Thanks everyone especially Hamlet, that was very enlightening. A bit disappointed though since anyonce can incite and encourage terrorists without fearing punishment.

[MaryEFoo]

What would movies be without the ability to show and ‘incite’ killings in juicy detail, and with ‘justifications’ for the characters?

More seriously, in the battleplace of ideas, how can you censor without spoiling the Darwinian nature of debate. Worthwhile ideas are supposed to out-compete bad ones, not hide from them.

Who’s going to be on the committee to decide what can be discussed?

A lot of thought went into the Bill of Rights.

[rjung]

@naser386

Thanks everyone especially Hamlet, that was very enlightening. A bit disappointed though since anyonce can incite and encourage terrorists without fearing punishment.

Welcome to an open and democratic society. “Freedom of speech” is meaningless if you only use it to protect speech that’s popular.

@beajerry

Hey, let’s ask John Ashcroft! I bet he’ll know!

I’m wary of asking legal advice from a guy who gets himself annointed with Crisco.

[micco]

@rjung

I’m wary of asking legal advice from a guy who gets himself annointed with Crisco.

Welcome to an open and democratic society. “Freedom of religion” is meaningless if you only use it to protect religion that’s popular.

[sailor]

@naser386

A bit disappointed though since anyonce can incite and encourage terrorists without fearing punishment.

So, doing X is a crime. And you believe that those who advocate doing X but do not actually do it should be punished? How would laws ever change then?

Should those who say smoking pot is OK go to jail?
Those who say God says a law is wrong go to jail?
Those who said slavery was wrong should have been sent to jail?

I may disagree with your ideas but I will defend your right to express them. I am sure I am not the first one to come up with this phrase. If there is something important for a free society it is the protection of freedom of unpopular speech. Anything else is not a free society. It is a tiranny of the government or of the masses.