From: [k--d--e] at [eff.org] (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats,alt.censorship,misc.legal,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: [rec.pets.cats] Reporting Usenet posts to Authorities
Date: 30 Aug 1993 14:13:20 -0400

[t--ck--r] at [monterey.esd.sgi.com] is said to have written:

>    Posting death threats and torture and the like have never been part of
>freedom of speech.  Try this with the U.S. postal service and see what
>happens.  Take a look at recent court cases if you don't believe me.   
>Posts on the Usenet have been ruled as admissable in a court of law.
[...]

========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/brandenburg-v-ohio ===========
Is there a right to speech that advocates illegal acts or violence?

(My response is based on U.S. law. It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill
of Rights Briefing Paper #10: Freedom of Expression.)

In 1919 the Court said no. Indeed, it said that any speech that had a
'tendency' to cause a volation of the law could be punished. This
principle was used to convict a Socialist for mailing antiwar
leaflets.

In 1925 the Court established stronger speech protections, stating
that speech could not be punished unless it presented 'a clear a
present danger' of imminent harm. In 1931, this was used to overturn a
conviction based on a California law. That law make it illegal to
publically salute a red flag -- the symbol of (violent) revolution.

In 1950's during the second Red Scare, the Court backtracked saying
that the clear-and-present-danger principle did not apply to speakers
who advocated overthorwing the government, no matter how remote the
danger of such an occurrence might be. (This paved the way for jailing
policitial activists, loyalty oaths, etc).

In the 1969 case of Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down
the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member under a criminal syndicalism
law and established a new standard: Speech may not be suppressed or
punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action'
and it is 'likely to produce such action.' Otherwise, the First
Amendment protects even speech that advocates violence. The
Brandenberg test is the law today.
--
Carl Kadie -- [k--d--e] at [cs.uiuc.edu] -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =[k--d--e] at [eff.org], [k--d--e] at [cs.uiuc.edu] =