It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're right. There are Exceptions to Free Expression as determined by the Supreme Court in previous cases. They are:
Incitement to Crime
The only possible exception this could fit under in the wildest of imaginations would be Incitement to Crime.
If you want the Dutch cartoonist to be "free" to draw pictures of Mohammad as an expression of the First Amendment, then you'd better think twice about calling this simple phrase uttered against a POLICY problem "incitement to crime".
There is a well-established legal definition of incitement to violence, and it involves three parts (1) that the person is directly being encouraged (or “incited”) to commit some act of violence, and (2) there is a clear and present danger that the person will commit the act, and (3) that the person does, in fact, commit the act.
There's no way that this Senator's speech even came close.
Originally posted by Tlove250
Unless he lives under a rock, he knows exactly in which way he would be taken. This was not misinterpreted, there was no misunderstanding, and what was said was meant to be said. Now, ask yourself why?