“Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Does it apply to trump rally on Jan 6th?
I’m having trouble understanding this test (and how it holds up today in the USA).
The original quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes was non-binding dicta, and he later recognized how mistaken he had been. Discussion in The Atlantic here.
The leading US Supreme Court case that developed the “imminent lawless action” standard is Brandenburg v. Ohio.
If a media outlet were broadcasting false stories knowingly, and with footage of a different place, could they be charged with inciting lawless action if their audience reacted violently? (* should be charged 'with, 'not charged for' in title)
Are there any free speech cases that the court found to fail the imminent lawless action test set up by Brandenburg?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
> the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
I also took a look at the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and unless you are extorting someone, every single other act it makes illegal is only so if a computer was accessed "without authorization".
I started to read some cases but I stopped after the first two had been appealed.
Can all of these cyberstalking/cyberbullying laws be beaten? Couldn't you argue that even if you're bullying and literal suggestions of suicide caused someone to kill themselves, not only was it statistically unlikely that such an event would occur but also (depending on the situation) that you never advocated for the act to happen immediately?
Don't worry, I don't intent to bully anyone. I was reading about Oliver Wendell Holmes' after I heard his quote (bellow) and ended up at the limits of free speech. > The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins
Hi guys! I'm not sure if I'm in the right subreddit for this, but I need some help understanding a reading I was assigned for a Mass Media Law class.
Basically, one of the questions we had to consider was why the defendant in the Whitney v. California case was convicted, but the defendant in the Brandenburg v. Ohio case was protected by the First Amendment. Based on what I've read, what I understand so far is that the defendant cannot be charged simply by advocating violence, but would be if the threat proved to be imminent and likely.
What I don't understand is how do you define what is imminent and likely? According to the document my professor handed us, Brandenburg was featured in a film with reporters where he was giving a speech that vaguely declared his intent to cause harm to others. Though he himself did not brandish any weapon while giving the speech, most of the other members were. I do not quite understand the Whitney case as the document did not discuss much about it.
Is there any examples that anyone can provide me to illustrate the difference between the two cases?
Tether episode may come to a climax soon, if latest buzz in both media and social media is anything to go by.
Bloomberg has just published a detailed article trying to ideintify the source of the $69 Billion backing Tether, only to conclude that they have not been able to identify the money.
The only source who would speak to Bloomberg is the person running Deltec bank in Bahamas, who could account for around 1/4th of Tether's money (around $15 BN) but stayed coy when quizzed on the other money.
Tether has never tried to explain where exactly their money is stashed. If their statements are true, they would be the world's 7th largest commercial paper holder, with almost $30 bn in this..but no one in wall street has heard of them.
All of this unfolded over the last few months, but just few hours ago the CEO of Tether has deleted his twitter account.
There is massive speculation that Tether may be holding papers from China companies, that would explain why Wall St has no clue about Tether, but at the same time make Tether highly risky as China seems to be heading to a financial crisis.
SEC may be looking at Tether too.
Just yesterday, US Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced the formation of a task force headed by DOJ to crack down on crypto entities including exchanges, manipulators etc.
Solved: >!Meerkat Manor!<
Update: it's a docuseries
Hint 4: >!They hate snakes.!<
Hint 3: >!Matriarchal society.!<
Hint 2: >!Non-English with English narration.!<
Hint 1: >!unscripted!<
https://www.afrostar.io/
Thoughts? I will give you moon(s) for constructive response's...
For those unaware, Celsius Network implemented token burning recently (October 1st, 2021) where they will burn away some tokens each week. It is important to note that Celsius already had a fixed supply. Not inflationary by nature, and honestly it was already somewhat deflationary. What changed?
I think one reason for implementing the burn, as CEO Alex Mashinsky said, is jealously of how ETH and others did after the burn. However, ETH is not controlled by one company, it begs the question of what regulators will think.. I hate to say it but it is quite literally manipulation of the CEL price, it just depends on how a regulator wants to define the terms of manipulation.
CEL token is vastly different from a coin like ETH in terms of decentralization. The thing with CEL is we already have a fixed supply: why burn it? ETH had an unlimited supply by nature, that is why they built a burn protocol..
It begs the question.. who actually benefits from CEL token burning? The answer is an overwhelmingly smaller part of the community (which is only natural for Celsius to tailor their needs to because they help the business token grow) as well as the COMPANY itself (treasury, employee bonuses, etc.). hmm...
The 70%-ish who don't own CEL in the COMMUNITY will likely see smaller APY on their other coins.. the money to burn doesn't come out of thin air. If they don't, then that begs the question of "why not higher yields to begin with?" if Celsius had the money to "support" the community. Maybe they have taken care of the financials and everything will be fine, but I can't help but think something is fishy.. It doesn't help that Alex was not on the same page during the AMA and Zach had to clarify. I hope in Tuesday's AMA Alex can come better prepared for clarification. Otherwise, there is a huge uncertainty here in terms of regulation and general financials.
Imo, the bottom has been reached. This is on BitMart, but is a reflection of the price regardless. This exchange's bottom was 0.00000198, and I bought more at 0.00000201 so not too bad on the timing.
The great news about better communication moving forward, combined with upcoming AMA, I think we're in a great spot.
Even with whales unloading, either:
a) They unload a fuck ton (with rising price, but they keep the sell wall semi-prevalent) and have even less market dominance, more reflections, or:
b) They unload and the price doesn't reflect a sell wall at all.
Because I will absolutely, totally, obviously get sued if some random loses $0.01, I am obligated to say NoT fInAnCiAl AdViCe.
SFM to the moon let's fucking go
https://preview.redd.it/oxsmvvfmt7f71.png?width=212&format=png&auto=webp&s=6dbf1f561c24c96bc612b482cd473aefaef41066
Paper hands will regret selling at this price leves.
