Gyroscopic Investing

Speaking at Mayor Muriel Bowser’s Black Lives Matter (BLM) Plaza – which has shuttered local businesses and created a street full of illegal activity – one speaker shouted to cheers and applause:

“I’m at the point where I’m ready to put these police in the f**king grave. I’m at the point where I wanna burn the f**king White House down.”

The speaker went on while the crowd egged him on:

“I wanna take it to the Senators,” he said, in a chilling statement coming just one day after Senator Rand Paul and his wife were attacked in the street outside the White House.

“I wanna take it to the Congress,” he continued.

“I wanna take the fight to them. And at the end of the day if they ain’t gonna hear us, we burn them the f**k down.”

Bragging about his own violent actions in New York, the speaker said: “I’m one that talk real sh*t. I talk it in New York and I talk it in DC. The same way I f**k police up in New York, I f**k cops here in DC. The same way I bust police in the head in New York, I bust police in the head in DC.”

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/dc-bl ... ouse-down/

I would say that this meets the Supreme Court definition of speech not covered under the 1st amendment as being equivalent to "shouting fire in a crowded theater".

pp4me wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 1:33 pm I would say that this meets the Supreme Court definition of speech not covered under the 1st amendment as being equivalent to "shouting fire in a crowded theater".

Yes, inciting to violence isn't considered protected speech.

pp4me wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 1:33 pm I would say that this meets the Supreme Court definition of speech not covered under the 1st amendment as being equivalent to "shouting fire in a crowded theater".

What you cited is NOT so clear-cut....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_ ... ed_theater

Vinny

yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 6:28 pm

pp4me wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 1:33 pm I would say that this meets the Supreme Court definition of speech not covered under the 1st amendment as being equivalent to "shouting fire in a crowded theater".

What you cited is NOT so clear-cut....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_ ... ed_theater

Vinny

I have not always liked the fire in a crowded theater analogy because it was originally used in a case involving the prosecution of protesters speaking out against U.S. involvement in WW1.

From the same wiki however, it sure sounds to me like the speech we are talking about fits the description as the Supreme Court later stated...

"The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1]"