I was taught that the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause has certain limits, unlike the Second Amendment as irrationally interpreted by the Supreme Court. Left unprotected by the First Amendment are incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. In a 1969 case, the Court held that speech which would be directed to and likely to incite “imminent lawless action” was outside the bounds of First Amendment protection (Brandenburg v. Ohio).
Encyclopedia Britannica states that the First Amendment does not protect speech “likely to incite or produce [imminent lawless action] (such as a speech to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building).” Like the U.S. Capitol, perhaps?
January 6, 2021 was hardly the only time Donald Trump went way beyond the protective bounds of the First Amendment. He engages in unprotected speech daily. Undeterred by federal, state or local law enforcement or social media content moderators, he continues to incite his followers to undertake violent acts both before with his “Stop the Steal” lies, as well as ever since the insurrection. The hammer blows to the head of Paul Pelosi were struck by David DePape, an election denier influenced by Trump’s barrage of lies about the “stolen” 2020 election. On August 11, 2022, Ricky Walter Shiffer assaulted the FBI's Cincinnati field office. He wore body armor and carried an AR-15 style rifle and a nail gun. Shiffer had participated in the January 6 insurrection, and after the FBI document search of Mar-a-Lago, had posted on Truth Social, Trump’s social media outlet, that he wanted to kill FBI agents. These and other incidents of Trump devotees seeking to turn his words into violent acts can be traced directly back to the disgraced former president.
None of these violent acts prompted Trump to temper his inflammatory rhetoric and social media posts. He continues to threaten people like Special Counsel Jack Smith and other Justice Department and FBI officials whom he claims are out to get him. His followers have threatened state and local election officials. The Washington Post reported this week that individual prosecutors involved with Jack Smith's indictment of Donald Trump are being subjected to "substantial" harassment and threats from pro-Trump fanatics. Trump himself is a walking, talking hate criminal.
When, one must ask, is enough enough? Fortunately, there has not yet been any mass violence despite Trump’s attempts to instigate some. That may be because the leaders of his extremist, neo-Nazi cohorts, such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, have been hauled before the courts for their violent January 6 assault on the Capitol. This may have deterred others inclined to violent acts. The real danger, however, are “lone wolf” attacks, such as the ones cited above.
Why haven’t the authorities clamped down on Trump? Why does he get a special pass when anyone else who engages in this kind of incitement to violence would likely be quickly and severely punished? Admittedly, it is not easy for the authorities to meet the Supreme Court’s three-pronged test for curbing Free Speech elucidated in Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989): the restriction must be (1) content neutral, (2) narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and (3) leave open ample alternative channels for communicating the speaker’s message. Nevertheless, the time has come to make the effort.
It's a miracle that there hasn't been more violence on Trump's behalf. Allowing him to continue to rabble-rouse unchecked is going to get people severely injured or even killed.
Dick Hermann
July 14, 2023
Encyclopedia Britannica states that the First Amendment does not protect speech “likely to incite or produce [imminent lawless action] (such as a speech to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building).” Like the U.S. Capitol, perhaps?
January 6, 2021 was hardly the only time Donald Trump went way beyond the protective bounds of the First Amendment. He engages in unprotected speech daily. Undeterred by federal, state or local law enforcement or social media content moderators, he continues to incite his followers to undertake violent acts both before with his “Stop the Steal” lies, as well as ever since the insurrection. The hammer blows to the head of Paul Pelosi were struck by David DePape, an election denier influenced by Trump’s barrage of lies about the “stolen” 2020 election. On August 11, 2022, Ricky Walter Shiffer assaulted the FBI's Cincinnati field office. He wore body armor and carried an AR-15 style rifle and a nail gun. Shiffer had participated in the January 6 insurrection, and after the FBI document search of Mar-a-Lago, had posted on Truth Social, Trump’s social media outlet, that he wanted to kill FBI agents. These and other incidents of Trump devotees seeking to turn his words into violent acts can be traced directly back to the disgraced former president.
None of these violent acts prompted Trump to temper his inflammatory rhetoric and social media posts. He continues to threaten people like Special Counsel Jack Smith and other Justice Department and FBI officials whom he claims are out to get him. His followers have threatened state and local election officials. The Washington Post reported this week that individual prosecutors involved with Jack Smith's indictment of Donald Trump are being subjected to "substantial" harassment and threats from pro-Trump fanatics. Trump himself is a walking, talking hate criminal.
When, one must ask, is enough enough? Fortunately, there has not yet been any mass violence despite Trump’s attempts to instigate some. That may be because the leaders of his extremist, neo-Nazi cohorts, such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, have been hauled before the courts for their violent January 6 assault on the Capitol. This may have deterred others inclined to violent acts. The real danger, however, are “lone wolf” attacks, such as the ones cited above.
Why haven’t the authorities clamped down on Trump? Why does he get a special pass when anyone else who engages in this kind of incitement to violence would likely be quickly and severely punished? Admittedly, it is not easy for the authorities to meet the Supreme Court’s three-pronged test for curbing Free Speech elucidated in Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989): the restriction must be (1) content neutral, (2) narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and (3) leave open ample alternative channels for communicating the speaker’s message. Nevertheless, the time has come to make the effort.
It's a miracle that there hasn't been more violence on Trump's behalf. Allowing him to continue to rabble-rouse unchecked is going to get people severely injured or even killed.
Dick Hermann
July 14, 2023
RSS Feed