terrorism

[Thumpalumpacus]

The beheadings in the Middle East happened because people there incite that behavior there.

I disagree. The beheadings there, perpetrated upon Western journalists, happen because they have shock value in the Western media. Now, if you have evidence that public demonstrations replete with signs are what are inciting those beheadings, I'm all ears.

But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that those atrocities are a result of extremists attempting to shock and dismay their enemy.

We have mow had radicalized Muslims murder people in the U.K. and Canada, incited by that kind of speech. SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction.

First sentence needs sourcing. Second sentence is unnecessary.

So, I'm sticking with "it's criminal behavior". And I predict this will be argued in court in the not too distant future.

You may think it's criminal speech. I think it's misguided speech. And I think SCOTUS will uphold precedent if it gets that far.

Speaking of which, are there any relevant cases in the US court system you know of?