Sorry, X-P. I didn't see your post until Alice bumped it up.
The point of the SC is that, as with Brandenburg v Ohio, they are determining if state laws are constitutional. In that case, they did not.
But another try may be coming having to do with internet "threats." Almost by definition someone making threats over a computer can not meet the imminent bodily harm standard. The court will get another bite at the apple but, if they are consistent, this law has to fail also.
Quote:Incitement to violence can be a criminal offence in the USA, but according to SCOTUS decisions it would require demonstrating "imminent bodily harm."
The point of the SC is that, as with Brandenburg v Ohio, they are determining if state laws are constitutional. In that case, they did not.
But another try may be coming having to do with internet "threats." Almost by definition someone making threats over a computer can not meet the imminent bodily harm standard. The court will get another bite at the apple but, if they are consistent, this law has to fail also.
