Georgia on Our Mind – The American Mind

For at least two reasons, it is inconsequential if the purpose of the defendants tweets and other statements was to convince government officials to re-examine, delay, or change the basis on which they would certify election results. Regardless of whether the action promoted was criminal, advocating the commission of a crime, or even the use of violence, to advance political goals is protected by the Free Speech Clause, unless it is a direct incitement to imminent lawless action and is likely to succeed, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). And under a separate clause of the First Amendment, each American also has the right to to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It is unconstitutional to bring criminal charges against an American for exercising his or her First Amendment rights.

My analysis of Smith s indictment is here.

via americanmind.org

Kevin Spivak.

That’s the question. And whether “the phone call” was in fact a direct incitement. More popcorn please.