When Does Speech Incite Violence? | Brandenburg v. Ohio

[@iammrbeat]

I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court! Check it out here: amzn.to/3p8nV64 or visit www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html.

[@starbase51shiptestingfacility]

Technically, hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Bradenburg's speech however contains some falsehoods, which are not protected. “If our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken,” Brandenburg said. “We are marching on Congress on the Fourth, four hundred strong.” Unless you mean suppression of violence against people of color, such as harassment, assault, torture, which are crimes. Police are supposed to combat crime. KKK is a domestic terrorist group, a threat against non-whites. They have a history of violence (crimes). The only protection they have, as far as hate speech, is the 5th Amendment, Right to Remain Silent, anything they say can and will be used in a court of law. SCOTUS of 1969 was also the court that instituted Qualified Immunity (actually, obstruction of justice) against civil workers, whose Constitutional Rights were violated... On it's first use, they invalidated Q.I., saying it was applicable in all cases... except for established law. The Bill of Rights are Constitutional Amendment Laws established since 1791 and almost 2 centuries old in 1969. They are the most established laws, only behind the Constitution (1789), the Supreme Law of the Land. The malpractice of law was in use for over 50 years. If you have a vague notion, the judicial system is dysfunctional, you are not imagining it. SCOTUS of 1969 not only violated their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, they also instituted obstruction of justice (a crime and malpractice of law) into the court system. The lower courts got it correct although maybe not worded correct, the SCOTUS of 1969 got it wrong. Falsehood is not protected under Freedom of Speech.

[@GlitchyShadow13]

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” -Noam Chomsky

[@iammrbeat]

Great quote

[@HistoryNerd808]

Glitchy-S Chomsky tends to be well to my left but I agree 100% with him here

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

Noam's awesome at big concepts and history, but current events are always anyone's bet. Noam's the best thing to happen to Anarchism in decades.

[@TheGoblinoid]

Context is everything, my friend. This was not a blank slate statement, he was not talking about white supremacists, he was talking about minorities. Oh, fuck you, also.

[@YOTSUBA_desu]

goblinoid hypocrite

[@jojoquigley7741]

Is it legal to yell "theater" in a crowded firehouse ?

[@gavinluthi8679]

Probably

[@ryleeroseborough7885]

In an alternate universe, no

[@renees1021]

I can appreciate this thought. A+ to you for applying reason to reality. I don't care so much the answer just that the question was realized.

[@trangvophuong6919]

Under Brandenburg v. Ohio, yes, in some cases. If you intentionally yelled fire in a crowded theater with the intent to cause panic, than you could potentially satisfy the Brandenburg test. However, you'll most likely get charged with "disturbing the peace," or, if your yelling caused some people to die, then you could get charged with involuntary manslaughter. If you mistakenly believed that there was an actual fire, than that would be protected speech. If you used the word "fire" to alert people to another danger that was not fire, then that would also be protected.

[@SylviaRustyFae]

@@trangvophuong6919 They said theater in a crowded firehouse... Thats not the same thing. Thats you mistakenly believin there is a theater in a crowded firehouse.

[@xp_studios7804]

Revengence is a bigley word

[@alejandrokaplan7243]

XP_Studios that’s some Cofefe

[@koba687]

Reminds me of metal gear rising revengence

[@tellthemborissentyou]

Revengence is the imperial version of metric revenge. There are 2.54 cm per inch hence the conversion factor.

[@dead.dummy678]

Lmao

[@soap5547]

LMFAO i was mad confused as a German. I thought this was some weird the State of Ohio vs the German State of Brandenburg video, and the fuck has the KKK to do with it lmfao

[@AjarTadpole7202]

That would be hilarious if the State of Ohio sued a State of Germany

[@charliesarver]

@@AjarTadpole7202 Especially in this context. Only for the court to rule in favor of Germany.

[@BRANFED]

i was intrigued by this video for obvious reasons.. irony is i argue some of these points about free speech and how it protects unpopular or hate speech atleast once a week

[@colep8754]

Thanks for the video. Helped me understand the case for a debate in my ethics class.

[@iammrbeat]

Glad it helped! :D

[@Justagamerhere1]

I would have loved to see every Supreme Court Judge say to Brandenburg's face that what he did was pointless and harmless, so he would be allowed to say it.

[@iammrbeat]

haha, yeah...give him a voice so that he can embarrass himself.

[@dstinnettmusic]

"Criminal syndocalism act" This sounds like one of those weird Red Scare era laws. You should do a video on laws like these.

[@benjijacobs2049]

I’d bet that it was as a red scare law since this was in the 40s, the start of the main American red scare

[@wildfire9280]

Ironic that it got used to press charges on a Klan member.

[@zakattack8624]

Your videos are lifesavers for developing my essays on Supreme Court cases xD I was looking for who stated the "imminent lawless" test.

[@josestarks8892]

I may not like what you have to say, but you can be for damn sure I will defend your right to say it!

[@benjijacobs2049]

As the libertarians say, “Don’t tread on me!”

[@star_wars_nerd8.258]

@@benjijacobs2049 the snake approves this message 🐍

[@jborrego2406]

I agree but to what end like burn cross on public street in front mg house as they scream kill black ppl

[@detwynner5]

I actually used the case for my project and got an A. Thank you Mr. Beat!

[@iammrbeat]

Do you think Donald Trump incited the mob to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021?

[@500deathwing]

Mr. Beat I think so.

[@AlexKawa20]

Mr. Beat Yes.

[@yankenbeanstrum648]

Mr. Beat Literally all Conservatives on KZbin are trying to twist it to be the fault of the Liberal counter-protestors.

[@lukedetering4490]

Mr. Beat Yes

[@lukedetering4490]

Nick 1989 But here's the problem. Yes they had the right to rally, but the violence inflicted was not warranted by anyone. Now had the white nationalist just stood there then I wouldn't have any problem, i disagree with them, but I'm not going to hurt them over it. Instead they bring SHIELDS AND CLUBS, which means they probably were planning to do harm to people in the first place. While Yes, you are allowed to protest, but if it's violent then the city can legally intervene the protest

[@unilajamuha91]

Brandenburg is overpowered, defeating Ohio unanimously??? No wonder they later formed Prussia, one of the most militaristic nations

[@guywexler4386]

As a history fan, I am so glad to have found this comment

[@joshyjoshakin]

I'm slowly making my way through all the supreme court briefs and this one shook me. Through all the proceedings following January 6th, it's astonishing that the public isn't as aware of Brandenburg vs Ohio

[@WantedArgonianMale]

This law protects those who call for violence and genocide of whites so it shouldn't upset you too much. It's a good law.

[@AILIT1]

Yeah this law pretty much says anybody that incited violence on January 6th is in trouble. If your words lead to nothing you're safe.

[@eqton729v]

It is unpopular speech that needs protection. Popular speech needs none.

[@iammrbeat]

Well put

[@anticorncob6]

Yes, that's the whole point of free speech. Nobody would invent the concept to refer to protecting normal speech that's not offensive to anyone, because everyone agrees with protecting that kind of speech.

[@HOleti-de8zy]

I don't think the problem with hate speech is that it's unpopular lol

[@waynejohnson1786]

@@HOleti-de8zy Hate speech isn’t a thing, at least not legally.

[@Poffean]

@@waynejohnson1786 not in the US, very much so in Canada and the EU

[@MasonCookMrFamous]

I want to point out the wonder of eight justices ruling 9-0

[@12345676571]

Mason Cook 😆😆

[@SylviaRustyFae]

Thats how unanimous they were

[@claudespeed277]

One of them talked to God for the 9th vote beforehand lol

[@mynameisdevon]

thank you so much for making these videos sincerely, a college student studying for midterms :))

[@nealfirstofhisname]

"How can I be racist? My lawyer is Brown." - Brandenburg "Understandable, have a nice day." - Surpreme Court of the United States

[@alexkrakowski8597]

Another suggestion would be doing Nazi party of America v Skokie community.

[@iammrbeat]

I actually stumbled across that one while researching for this video. Another great case to examine.

[@alexmorris6954]

@@iammrbeat Skokie dokie

[@jyeager4737]

I've watched this channel on my free time and was more than excited when my college professor played this video during our class on the prior restraint

[@mariguana7918]

So if it weren’t for these judges, we might not have GTA. God speed!

[@chillstation1624]

????

[@mariguana7918]

@@chillstation1624 Did you watch the video? This law paved way to violent games like GTA being covered under free speech.

[@chillstation1624]

@@mariguana7918 Thanks for clarifying, my brain was probably completely fried at the moment I wrote that comment

[@mariguana7918]

@@chillstation1624 No worries bro lmao

[@johnconsuegra6575]

These briefs are great. Helps to simply explain SCOTUS cases to students

[@Locojjona]

Also can you do Nixon vs United States

[@iammrbeat]

That's a great suggestion. WALTER Nixon, folks. Not Richard. :D

[@rockstarsharma53]

Mr. Beat lol I was gonna say, unless I've been living in an alternate dimension Richard Nixon never took a case to the supreme court

[@Locojjona]

Yeah Walter Nixon

[@iammrbeat]

Apparently Richard Nixon's case also went to the SC I just realized. That one is called United States v. Nixon. No joke!

[@Locojjona]

Yeah so

[@fleetadmiralj]

Here is my problem with Brandenburg. I get protecting vile speech if it is merely that - vile. But it seems like calling for violence is something that, you know, shouldn't be protected. Especially since in this case there were specific targets of the call for violence. As we've seen with Trump, there is a lot of speech that may pass the Brandenburg test which nevertheless may incite other people to partake in acts of violence.

[@PrestonWilson-ch6qf]

So this is the Brandenburg test's basis? Omg thank you so much I haven't ever seen this before Mr. Beat!

[@iychtftsootk]

Thanks

[@ianfitzpatrick2230]

I wonder what the context of this will be now that the trial is underway for January 6th. I wonder if this will be mentioned at all

[@Ramiobomb]

OMGOMGOMG It's Mr. Beat :D!

[@saltblood]

The rights of criminals and dissidents are imperative to the united states stating free and not becoming yet another failed democracy, the rights of those we disagree with to say disagreeable things is imperative to free speech as a whole

[@Nomed38]

Change democracy to constitutional republic (it's the form of government for the United States of America regardless of what the political/academic/corporate/government machine says) and your statement is 100% correct and is the intention of freedom of speech.

[@BaFunGool]

Fantastic Work..

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks John! :D

[@flamefusion8963]

I think everyone should have free speech, even if it is unpopular or offensive to some people.

[@iammrbeat]

I agree. People will always be offended by something.

[@flamefusion8963]

Mr. Beat True.

[@SormonAusPol]

As an Australian, where freedom of speech is not the be all end all. I find the US commitment to total free speech a detriment to there society as it allows the craziest nutjobs to have a voice in politics and leads to the politically hostile environment I see in the US (perhaps I might be mistaken) . Here in Australia we push freedom of speech only to a certain level and it has work out fine for us.

[@zachary2407]

Let people with bad beliefs dig their own grave. I also agree.

[@SormonAusPol]

The last person I saw with bad beliefs ended up as president.

[@letsplaygtag4842]

Saying "We might need revengance" while members of your rally are carrying guns **isn't** inciting imminent lawless action or likely to induce action?

[@Gallalad1]

Mr Beat would you ever consider doing important legal decisions from other countries? Like Somerset v Stewart?

[@iammrbeat]

I think eventually, yes. Right now I teach American history IRL, so that seems to occupy most of research time right now.

[@anitasebok1841]

Would you believe this thing happened,without the justice"s opinion being saved away?

[@theparadigm8149]

3:03 There you have it: “Syndicalism” is illegal in the United States! Kaiserreich fans will be angry

[@darkestlight6784]

I came here bc of impeachment trial against trump and twitter ban. This cleared my confusion up a bit, thank you. I'm curious about you, i don't see any summary in who you are and what kind of content you do in your description box. I looked through your video list and i'm really not sure.

[@iammrbeat]

Mostly educational videos. I teach social studies. 🙂

[@williamcfox]

Notification squad!

[@iammrbeat]

+The Exploration Great band name

[@alexkrakowski8597]

Great video Mr Beat. You should do WestSide Community Board of Education V Mergens.

[@iammrbeat]

I will eventually do that one for sure. Fun fact....I used to student teach at both Westside Middle School and Westside High School!

[@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty]

I hate defending this case because it's a KKK member. I agree with free speech, but Brandenburg's speech wasn't JUST free speech, he was calling for violence. His speech was threatening. I hate defending this case because, without it, we might be subject to more censorship than we are now. I desperately wish it wasn't Brandenburg and the KKK in this case. A decision that was *arguably* necessary yet still unpopular. Sigh...

[@aeris2001]

I'll see you for the next supreme court brief buddy!

[@Abc123hdbr]

But takking to an undercover cop about hurting or killing someone is not considered free speech

[@marcello7781]

I agree with protecting free speech, however I always remember that freedom implies responsibility and actions have consequences.

[@ericsandrade]

obviously there must be some limitations to the right of free speech but no one should ever get put in jail for purely saying an opinion.

[@LeonNikkidude]

Lots of evil hides under the 1 st amendment even though I believe it's a very charming amendment

[@victoriabaker6943]

Much as I detest them. You can’t give one side the freedom to state their beliefs& how they might manage it. In Charlottesville there was a clear danger, & then the violence as the need for dominance boiled over. It feels like we are still at that boiling over point. We keep having eruptions but the best example I can use Moana Loa (sp ?)As this volcano bubbles & continues to build the question is the same “Will it blow or subside for another day” The same applies to extremes in our world . Down in your shoes what do you feel? I believe: Ignorance > fear >mistrust >hate>verbal altercation >violence > injury &/or death

[@ricky99la]

The judges got it right

[@arielfuchs316]

THe court ruled 9-0 shows 8 justices

[@iammrbeat]

I honestly can't believe you're the first one to comment about that.

[@arielfuchs316]

@@iammrbeat Did a judge abstain or did you forget to add a picture

[@seekinggodfirst754]

Love the definition for revengeance lol

[@nicholasdigaetano]

Thurgood Marshall to how did that happen?

[@yourlocalramen1660]

This video is particularly relevant now.

[@McWilliam07]

Question for all: What do you think: did Trump pass the Brandenburg Test on January 6?

[@younggamer7218]

No

[@jonedson5910]

no because telling yours supporter march to capital building is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,”

[@crzylkfx]

Yes

[@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty]

Nope not at all

[@rentslave]

Can you imagine the Picaninny on the Potomac having the discernment that Hugo Black displayed here?

[@ShihammeDarc]

I may not agree with what you say, but I will be the first person to fight for your right to say it.

[@colin4724]

If you're able to reply to this please do. I thought the eleventh amendment prevented you from suing a state?

[@iammrbeat]

Great question. Yeah, you can't sue a state, but you can sue individuals who represent the state. Also, if the state finds you guilty of a crime, as Ohio did in this case, you can fight back, which is why this case is called Brandenburg vs. Ohio.

[@colin4724]

Mr. Beat thanks so much!

[@lavaknight3682]

I, personally, believe you should be able to say whatever you want under the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment doesn’t protect you from being punched for saying those things.

[@lavaknight3682]

Hassan Syed that isn’t what I meant when I said anything, but yes, that shouldn’t be allowed

[@chrise8275]

Its terrible but hate speech should be free speech, people have the right to say something.

[@ashtoncollins868]

President During this time: Richard Nixon Chief Justice: Earl Warren Argued February 27, 1969 Decided June 8, 1969 Case Duration: 101 Days Decision: 8-0 in favor of Brandenburg

[@Idkjustaname13]

I'll never understand how hate speech doesn't fall under fighting words which are not a protected speech. And the term "imminent" is entirely too vague. If someone says "I'll punch you in 5 minutes" it's suddenly not "immiment threat" because they're choosing to wait a while before assaulting you? Jesus

[@Orf]

3:00

[@Locojjona]

I wish I can support you on patreon

[@iammrbeat]

No worries. I appreciate your support in the comments. That means a lot...it really does :)

[@renees1021]

I understand the law to side with whatever the listener perceived as speaker intent and ability... Reasonable. Example: "I'm going to kill you!" from a 3 yr old upset at bedtime vs from the husband that caught you doinking his wife. When ya push the boundries and you don't know the mentality of those listening to you, you do bear some responsibility for their actions but I would argue not to the full responsibility because without real loss to myself or someone I care about no one can make another commit acts they weren't already willing to do. IMO

[@laursieloise]

it’s not a good or moral speech that hopefully no one agrees with but it is legal

[@andrewconley6510]

3:48 love your video

[@Cheerful_Ox]

Probably got this but what was the link to the rally

[@Cheerful_Ox]

For history

[@ML-ir5vo]

I do believe criminalising hate speech is productive. It certainly can stoke hatred and can go down slippery slopes at times, however, legitimising positions like those of the KKK makes it very difficult to move on quickly. The quicker you can outline that racism is not OK, the less society will accept it.

[@charliefoulds5989]

However the more you try to suppress the KKK they only go underground and possibly attract more members. Let them have their little ceremonies they look like idiots doing them. However it is virtually impossibly to criminalise hate speech as it will drift into government tyranny as what is happening in the UK

[@JordanLofgren434]

What a terrible argument. Nobody can define what hate speech is. Once you start labeling something as "hate speech," everything can start being labeled that way. That means when the people you don't like get into power, your opinions will be labeled as "hate speech."

[@marcello7781]

@TickleTh1sElmo Maybe in the US law nobody can define what hate speech is. In most European countries it's generally defined as inciting racial and religious hatred, which isn't just having different opinions but promoting downright violence and defamation against other people on the base of their color, gender, religion etc.

[@filozof90]

The law legitimizes free speech, not positions of the KKK.

[@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty]

This argument is further supported by the paradox of tolerance. The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant of the intolerant, the intolerant will inevitably overpower the tolerant, defeating the purpose of tolerance in the first place. Thus, there must be limitations on what is and isn't tolerable speech. We tolerated Trump to spread his election fraud lies after 2020 and it led to violence on January 6th. Actual people died on Capitol Hill that day. Intolerance caused the death of civilians. Frustrating as it may be, censoring hate speech is justified.

[@tonynguyen6313]

If you apply this to Trump's tweets, then you would see that they are not protected under the First Amendment. The boundary is that hate speech is protected, but inciting violence isn't.

[@computerentity]

we'll see.

[@Zroolmpf_Celmbror]

Assuming that he fell afoul of the legal definition of incitement.

[@computerentity]

@@Zroolmpf_Celmbror Hence, we'll see.

[@tonynguyen6313]

@@Zroolmpf_Celmbror True. What defines "incitement" is unclear and this may go all the way up to the Supreme Court should Congress impeach and remove him.

[@AureliusLaurentius1099]

Though Trump also said "Fight like hell" he also said in the same speech "We would PEACEFULLY and patriotically march to the Capitol to make your voices heard"

[@blazerplays4961]

I might be wrong he but did you say that Whitney v California was after Brandenburg because it wasn't it was before.

[@rockstarsharma53]

Do Rosa Parks vs Alabama 1955

[@iammrbeat]

Rosa Parks v. Montgomery? That's not a SCOTUS case, is it?

[@rockstarsharma53]

Mr. Beat sorry I didn't know that

[@iammrbeat]

No worries! I'd still like to do a video about Rosa Parks eventually. :D

[@rockstarsharma53]

Mr. Beat that'd be great

[@twitchypaper1391]

@@iammrbeat do Browder v. Gayle

[@Gallalad1]

Lovely video but as far as the Chancellorsville incident I am not so sure. In regards to the earlier parts of the meeting where ANTIFA protesters violently entered the park I think that the White Supremacists were in the right and did not incite the initial violence. As for the car attack I think there was no dispute that it was caused by a white nationalist without any prior incitement on his case Frankly the whole day was a shitshow and showed (to me) that despite the equipment that American law enforcement have the training is not enough and needs an overhaul

[@iammrbeat]

Did you see Wendover Productions video about how to stop a riot? It explained many reasons why the police failed to stop the violence that day. I agree with some of your points, though. The Antifa protesters were violent, too. But ultimately, the white supremacist running over a whole street of people in a car overshadowed all of that.

[@stalkinghorse883]

I think a major contributor to violence in these situations is when the police are ordered to stand down. If the police do not provide an environment of control it will get out of hand. Yesterday in Berkeley there was a massive police presence and it kept things under control.

[@iammrbeat]

Agree, as much as I hate to see the police dehumanized.

[@Gallalad1]

Mr. Beat I did indeed see this video and agreed largely I feel that with the level of funding in American police forces I would feel they should have a far more efficient way by now Thanks for the video by the way, helping me understand American law a little more every time

[@birdstudios978]

I Support: Brandenburg WAIT NO NOT LIKE THAT I SUPPORT HIS COURT CASE NO NO NO

[@patchoulicolt7093]

A legal edutainment channel?! ***SIBSCRIBÉ***

[@PatriotMapper]

Everyone gangsta until the Ku Klux Klan is in the thumbnail.

[@woodchuck003]

Regardless of ideology the vast majority of people who were there expected violence to break out. Anybody with an open and unbiased mind can see that the left initiated in the violence; this does not mean that the right is innocent, innocent people don't wear makeshift body armor. The problem is we live in a political climate where it is becoming more and more popular to believe that the world is binary, that it is good and evil, that things are black and white. But we live in a world where most things are grey and it at times may require your frontal lob to understand the nuance. My gratest fear is that we are living in the late Roman republic. Anti-Fa is clearly Claudius's mob, Milo has plenty of potential members but no clear leader. I am trying to figure out who is the Ceasr that is going to correct the problm by creating a police state.

[@jaydonbooth4042]

Seems pretty inciteful to me. Calls to action by hateful people can certainly encourage people to do harm.

[@johnjohnson-sm6nz]

no i do not think they incited violence..i cant stand the kkk or any hate groups but they had a rite to march and speak freely..didnt they even go as far as to obtain a permit?

[@itsmealex8959]

Revengence should be an unconstitutional word to use. Like to support the 28th amendment banning this word and the word "moist" from ever being used in a sentence.

[@anitasebok1841]

If there is any false case around that s one

[@northbridge4665]

Paradox of tolerance though

[@Davey-TheDJ]

On January 19th 2024 repeating some things I just said on the last video that just re-watched and rewatching this one for a second time this was a dangerous dangerous precedent to what we're facing now oh my goodness this is tarnish my opinion of the Supreme Court

[@hkhkhnmmnlkyyutuytu]

Is that from "Ku Klux Klan - A secret history"?

[@iammrbeat]

+Brown McJuggerNuggets Yes. A great documentary

[@DCJNewsMedia]

Excellent teaching of case law Aka judical opinion. Daymond Chief Jones Police Accountability Expert On KZbin

[@florinivan6907]

Long story short as long as you keep it vague/ what if you should be fine.

[@susanlowy3947]

It was 8-0.

[@jeffkloepfer]

To answer your question: yes! There needs to be a revised version of the Brandenburg test that includes rhetoric like what was said in Charlottesville. If you watch the live stream video, you hear several calls to action that include incitement for violence and also them saying set incitements and then following up with attacks on counter protesters

[@ctln5296]

2:16 2:17

[@mbxoc954]

I thought you mean the German state Brandenburg

[@miguelangelb.1909]

Cool

[@owenmcanuff7549]

Let the AP Gov cram begin…

[@elisabeeruiz4985]

yes

[@anitasebok1841]

Havin the same name as theBrandenburg Gate

[@UnevenerGgc2]

Ironic that this was relevant during the 2nd Impeachment of Donald Trump

[@treyglass4883]

Any one want to write a 1250 word essay on this case for me

[@maxtassy1384]

Mr. Beast

[@Dark40061]

#MrBeat I want more video on Ohio

[@Bryancm2792]

How's here after the third day of impeachment trial

[@starwarsdonthugmeimscared8942]

Me

[@Locojjona]

Hi

[@iammrbeat]

Happy Friday!

[@Locojjona]

I sick

[@iammrbeat]

Aw man. Sorry to hear that. Get well soon.

[@Miniburn_04]

The only type of speech I agree with censoring is speech that could lead to violence or hate speech indecent of seeing I don't care about but this is ridiculous hate speech should be illegal

[@noone2862]

Only in Ohio

[@wolffster25]

Weird to see someone using revenegance ages before 2013. There is a very popular action game called Metal Gear Solid Rising: Revengeance it’s about a cyborg ninja named Raiden who is seeking revenge the game is over the top and ridiculous with a ton of political intrigue. The final boss is an ultra conservative pro US senator and is one of the best final bosses in a game ever. Anyway since you said Revengeance I’m now required to make a bunch of quotes from the game because memes: “Memes the DNA of the Soul” “NANOMACHINES, SON!!” “Don’t **** with THIS senator!” “Kids are cruel Jack, and I’m very much in touch with my inner child” And finally, “Making the mother of all omelets here Jack. Can’t fret over every egg”

[@elizabethmerin7489]

Even the person named black sided with bradenburg lol