AP versus Twitter, Facebook, YouTube: Was Re: Censorship: Twitter Hauled In for Pro-Biden Anti-Trump, YouTube Bans Coronavirus, QAnon, PizzaGate

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 07:34:03AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> On Saturday, October 17, 2020, 02:38:15 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote: 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 07:53:13AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> [snip]
> >> One lesson I learned was a Supreme Court case named Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444> 
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio> 
> >>>From that decision:> 
> >> "Measured by this test, Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained. The Act punishes persons who 'advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety' of violence 'as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform'; or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing such advocacy; or who 'justify' the commission of violent acts 'with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism'; or who 'voluntarily assemble' with a group formed 'to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.' Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's bald definition of the crime in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action.3 "     [end of quote]>> >> Did I:        'advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety' of violence 'as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform';   ?
> 
> >By my reading, you are skirting the line.
> No, the line isn't 'skirted'.  
> Okay, I will try to explain it more clearly.   To a first approximation, the principle of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) is that the US Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment (free speech) protects advocacy of 'crime' and 'violence' EXCEPT in what I call a 'riot-type' situations.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444       and      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio  

Ah yes, now I can see I got it back to front, and therefore incorrectly.  Thank you for clarifying my error.


> It should go without saying that I intend to avoid all "riot-type" situations, and if caught in one, I certainly won't be doing advocacy!  

<wry> :) </>