(May 4, 2015 at 6:38 pm)Minimalist Wrote: In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio
Duly noted.
(May 4, 2015 at 10:57 pm)robvalue Wrote: Free speech doesn't mean no consequences to speech...I agree that deciding whether or not someone "incited hatred or violence" is a judgement call.
If speech but not sequelae are to be protected, the call may occur when something concrete happens as a result of a speech. Then the imam could preach to heart's content, but might be arrested if one of his followers takes his advice to blow up a building. I dunno.
(May 5, 2015 at 12:37 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: The thing is, gang-injunctions aren't comparable to hate-speech or Holocaust-denial laws precisely because the HS/HD laws aren't banning behavior, they're banning spoken expression.
Granted there's probably a theoretical difference between them in law; I'm not a good enough lawyer to tell. However, making gang signs or using gang code words is a form of expression, and gang laws, while they don't ban the expressions themselves, do ban persons identified as "gang members" from using them in public. So it's a case of selective denial of free speech: I can make gang signs if I wan't since I'm not a gang member, but a gang member goes to jail if caught doing it. At least in Ogden; the Democrat-leaning Salt Lake City doesn't have a gang injunction.
