Even if a speech act can be interpreted as promoting illegal activity, it should still be protected under the US Constitution.
By
Rorek
on June 25, 2007
Agreed
27
1
96.4% 3.6%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
This claim was inspired by
Similar claims
- 52-3 The DMCA is unconstitutional.
- 46-2 In the United States, you have the right to refuse to allow a police officer to enter your home if the officer has neither a warrant nor a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed inside.
- 41-169 This claim is about everything
- 15-0 The government does not have a right to freedom of speech
- 31-7 The State Secrets privilege is unconstitutional.
Discussion (4)
s/Even/Especially/
D'A
I'm going to abstain b/c 'promoting' is a slippery slope. If someone is coordinating an illegal activity (like dispatching goons to attack a rival dealer or whatever), then that wouldn't be protected. All he'd have to do would be to make his orders vaguely suggestive to escape the law if all speech were protected to the degree of political speech. Likewise for written speech; hacking is a form of speech, but it can have illegal and/or harmful consequences.
Good point, Oscar. It's tough to create a standard by which on the one hand allows the the law to go after mob bosses and on the other allows people to encourage civil disobedience. Incitement to riot is another possible case for non-protected speech.
I might have to change my mind on this one.
I'm with Oscar on this one.