Domestic Terrorism versus Constitutional Speech

Extreme political views and speech have been a feature of American political and social life virtually since the founding of the republic. The Founders intended for the First Amendment to protect governmental infringements on speech, but throughout the republic’s history those protections have been breached on multiple occasions. The Alien and Sedition Acts, the Anarchist Exclusion Act, and the Espionage Act are just some of the examples of federal laws that have criminalized certain kinds of speech. But in a landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the high court ruled that speech deemed inflammatory or even threatening could only be prohibited by the government if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.” Ever since, that decision has provided protection against government attacks on speech by individuals or groups across the political spectrum deemed offensive or politically disfavored.

But what happens when adherents of extremist ideologies no longer feel shouting their views is enough? The rise of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, John Brown Gun Club chapters, and other organized, armed groups raises the specter of a confrontation that morphs from a shouting match into a firefight in an American community between two ideological, violent factions. Does inflammatory speech always result in real violence? Does the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio still draw the right line between constitutionally protected speech and that which is not? Has the rise and proliferation of social media platforms made the transition from violent speech to violent action easier and faster? Our panelists will examine all these issues and more. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.