Here’s a diagnostic you can run on yourself. If you think a speaker is “provoking violence” by speaking, then you utterly fail to understand the difference between speech and violence. Violence can often justifiably provoke violence — assault someone and he has the right to defend himself; assault him with deadly force and he has the right to end your life. But speech cannot justifiably provoke even a slap in the face. This is the law. But more than that, it is a founding principle of this nation. The wonderful thing about speech, even of the vilest sort, is that it leaves everyone free to engage in more speech. Violence, on the other hand, leaves only the winners free to engage in more violence. And as a recent pair of would be jihadis learned the hard way, that violence thing doesn’t always work out quite like you’re expecting it to.
Source: Suburban Sheepdog: Sommes-nous Charlie?
OK, so he does a better job than me. Sue me (Just don’t use him as lawyer)
Incitement to riot is an interesting piece of law.
Neither the rioting OR the speech is allowable.
BUT….. (I saw this on the internet…..so…) Burning a US flag in New York…that results in a stomping for doing so…is considered incitement to riot……
🙂
Ehh, I think there’s a bit of a blind spot when it comes to speech that threatens to initiate violence against another, especially in the presence of ability and opportunity.
The only speech not protected is precisely the one that will incite immediate violence.