Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron1710
Other issues may come into play in this one that I am not aware of but under the current Constitutional jurisprudence I am not sure they have a case against this sicko.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio the court said speech advocating illegal activity was not protected if, there is danger of imminent harm; a likelihood the speech will produce illegal action and there is an intent to cause imminent illegality.
The key is imminent which has come to mean it will happen quicker than the authorities can arrive.
I don't think that a book reaches that standard.
|
The imminent harm thing really is subjective though isn't it? Can you think of some exceptions? Seems some imminent "harm" may be difficult the quantify.
Threaded Mode
