Re:Petition to release Cameron D'Ambrosio
by bradleyjg on Sunday May 26, 2013 @05:33PM
(#5772515)
Brandenburg lays out the incitement exception to the First Amendment. If I understand the allegations correctly (and that's made more difficult by the lack of the actual lyrics) the prosecution claims that the speech would instead be unprotected under the true threat doctrine.
The leading Supreme Court case on that doctrine is Virginia v. Black 538 U.S. 343 (2003)[1], but unfortunately it's neither as clear nor quotable as Brandenburg. Here's the gist of the rule:
"'True threats' encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats "protect[s] individuals from the fear of violence" and "from the disruption that fear engenders," in addition to protecting people "from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur." (internal citations omitted)
The leading Supreme Court case on that doctrine is Virginia v. Black 538 U.S. 343 (2003)[1], but unfortunately it's neither as clear nor quotable as Brandenburg. Here's the gist of the rule:
"'True threats' encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats "protect[s] individuals from the fear of violence" and "from the disruption that fear engenders," in addition to protecting people "from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur." (internal citations omitted)
[1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US...