# "Imminent lawless action" and untrustworthy speakers **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 16, 2017, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832 "2017-08-16T22:53:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/21 "2017-08-18T16:05:59Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > One could argue that some groups’ message and goals are so repugnant that they demand armed counter-protestors show up to confront them, and thus there is imminent danger of violence every time such groups appear in public. I suspect that argument would be on shaky legal ground. Indeed, Martin Luther King Jr. could have been prevented from speaking publicly because he “stirred up too much trouble”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/22 "2017-08-18T16:15:40Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Sorry, I’m not going to engage in a discussion that excuses Nazis threatening to burn down a synagogue and then physically threatening the place. Shame on you that you are. ☹ > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Discussing what First Amendment doctrine should say does not excuse Nazis, much less discussing what current First Amendment doctrine does say. There’s no excusing Nazis going on here from me. But your description, **Chimera** , of what the Nazis did does not match the standards that First Amendment doctrine requires before speech loses its constitutional protection. “Constitutionally protected,” dos not mean “good,” or “right.” Indeed, most often the discussion of the boundaries of constitutional protection arises connected to odious, horrid speech. But it can still be discussed. Not excused. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/23 "2017-08-18T16:28:55Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Which protesters? > > Clearly they got them from right wingers who came in for the gathering. Are you trying to say those people are NOT the protesters? OK - do you have a cite that any threats of “imminent lawless action” came from right wingers who came in for the gathering? I haven’t seen that - if you have such a cite, by all means let’s see it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/24 "2017-08-18T17:04:16Z")
To whatever extent localities can deny permits for public gatherings, I’m sure a group with a track record of inciting violence would quickly be blacklisted or required to put up huge indemnity bonds. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/25 "2017-08-18T20:33:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The synagogue received threats from the protesters? > > Regards, > Shodan “For half an hour, three men dressed in fatigues and armed with semi-automatic rifles stood across the street from the temple.” “Several times, parades of Nazis passed our building, shouting, “There’s the synagogue!” followed by chants of “Seig Heil” and other anti-Semitic language. Some carried flags with swastikas and other Nazi symbols.” > [@Shodan](#): > > I must not have been clear. Do you have a cite for the synagogue receiving threats from the protesters? > > Regards, > Shodan Don’t be coy and snarky. If you don’t think the above qualifies as threatening, just say so. “Oh me, oh my, you must not have understood me” without even commenting on the above is just intentional assholery. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/26 "2017-08-18T20:38:33Z")
OK - do **you** have a cite that any threats of “imminent lawless action” came from right wingers who came in for the gathering? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/27 "2017-08-18T21:05:50Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > OK - do **you** have a cite that any threats of “imminent lawless action” came from right wingers who came in for the gathering? > > Regards, > Shodan I’m not making a legal argument, and neither were you. “The synagogue received threats from the protesters?” you asked. If your position is that there were no threats, say it. If your position is that there were threats, but they don’t qualify as “imminent lawless action,” why, then say that. It’s what the OP is asking about. I have no idea if these or other threats qualify as “imminent lawless action”; I know nothing about the laws that relate to this, and haven’t done any research. I’m not making an argument that they do or don’t. I’m just observing that your contributions thus far are, as I said, coy, snarky, and obviously intended to be jerkish without actually contributing anything to the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2017, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/28 "2017-08-19T05:57:26Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > I’m not making a legal argument, and neither were you. You might want to read the OP, which reads > [@](#): > > If a group has a history of lying about their intentions under cover of nonviolent free speech, but routinely and/or predictably escalate to violence, how does the law address that? Perhaps you weren’t addressing the subject, but I was. > [@](#): > > I’m just observing that your contributions thus far are, as I said, coy, snarky, and obviously intended to be jerkish without actually contributing anything to the discussion. Then report it, and we will see what a real mod says. Also report the part where we accuse each other of intentional assholery. By “we” I mean “you”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2017, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/29 "2017-08-19T11:39:21Z")
“If you ever hit me again, Philip, I’m moving out and filing for divorce.” That’s a threat. But it’s a legally permissible threat. ---
**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2017, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/30 "2017-08-19T12:27:32Z")
**Eonwe** , please tone done the way you’re addressing other posters, or take that part to the Pit. You’re walking a line of troll accusations. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2017, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/31 "2017-08-19T12:31:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “If you ever hit me again, Philip, I’m moving out and filing for divorce.” > > That’s a threat. > > But it’s a legally permissible threat. My point is that it was entirely reasonable for those in the synagogue to view the actions of the neo-nazis as threatening, and also reasonable if they saw the counter-protesters as protectors and possibly the reason the synagogue was not attacked. ---
**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2017, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/32 "2017-08-19T12:32:03Z")
**Bricker** , the threat question arose out of **octopus** ’ comment and **iiandyiiii** ’s response, neither of which, from my reading, have anything to do with the legal definition of a threat. **octopus** asked if there would have been violence if the protesters hadn’t been met by counter-protesters, and **iiandyiiii** responded that since the protesters threatened the synagogue, there might have been. I am confused about why it would be necessary to reach a legal threshold in order to say that it’s possible violence could have occurred based on a group being threatening. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2017, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/33 "2017-08-19T13:11:09Z")
Does the OP not count as relevant context, Asimovian? Sort of hard to accuse Bricker of legalizing the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2017, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/34 "2017-08-19T13:30:57Z")
> **[Daily Signe Cartoon 08/18/17](https://www.inquirer.com/philly/opinion/signe/20170818_Daily_Signe_Cartoon_08_18_17.html)** ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2017, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/35 "2017-08-19T14:07:26Z")
> [@Asimovian](#): > > **Bricker** , the threat question arose out of **octopus** ’ comment and **iiandyiiii** ’s response, neither of which, from my reading, have anything to do with the legal definition of a threat. Both of which arose in a thread that started with a post that asked, “If a group has a history of lying about their intentions under cover of nonviolent free speech, but routinely and/or predictably escalate to violence, **how does the law address that**?” ---
**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2017, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/36 "2017-08-19T15:52:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Both of which arose in a thread that started with a post that asked, “If a group has a history of lying about their intentions under cover of nonviolent free speech, but routinely and/or predictably escalate to violence, **how does the law address that**?” Yes, I’m aware of what the OP says. But I don’t think that gives it relevance to **iiandyiiii** ’s statement. The question “Can a threat lead to violence?” does not require a legal answer. Saying that the threat in question does not meet a legal definition of “threat” is not an answer to that question. If your intent was not to address\*\* iiandyiiii\*\*'s point, that’s fine, and I’ll accept that I misunderstood that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/37 "2017-08-19T17:42:35Z")
> [@Asimovian](#): > > Yes, I’m aware of what the OP says. But I don’t think that gives it relevance to **iiandyiiii** ’s statement. The question “Can a threat lead to violence?” does not require a legal answer. Saying that the threat in question does not meet a legal definition of “threat” is not an answer to that question. > > If your intent was not to address\*\* iiandyiiii\*\*'s point, that’s fine, and I’ll accept that I misunderstood that. My intent was to address **iiandyiiii** ’s point _in the context of the thread’s overall point_. If it turns out that **iiandyiiii** intended to say, in effect, “But enough about this law stuff – can a threat lead to violence in general terms?” then I did indeed miss his point. And to answer that point: yes, in general terms, a threat can lead to violence. This seems self-evident. The key (in my view) is distinguishing between cases in which the side proffering the violence is legally justified and cases in which they are not. But maybe the idea was just to discuss general triggers for violence in the world. In the middle of a thread about law. But unrelated to the law. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2017, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832/38 "2017-08-19T18:01:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My intent was to address **iiandyiiii** ’s point _in the context of the thread’s overall point_. If it turns out that **iiandyiiii** intended to say, in effect, “But enough about this law stuff – can a threat lead to violence in general terms?” then I did indeed miss his point. > > And to answer that point: yes, in general terms, a threat can lead to violence. This seems self-evident. The key (in my view) is distinguishing between cases in which the side proffering the violence is legally justified and cases in which they are not. But maybe the idea was just to discuss general triggers for violence in the world. > > In the middle of a thread about law. > > But unrelated to the law. Not being a lawyer, I wanted to comment on some other aspects of the issue and get opinions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imminent-lawless-action-and-untrustworthy-speakers/793832.md?page=1)