When Does Speech Incite Violence? | Brandenburg v. Ohio

I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: amzn.to/45Wzhur
Patreon: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.us
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
In episode 17 of Supreme Court Briefs, a KKK leader gets his hate rally on TV, and then promptly gets arrested. Wait a second, what about freedom of speech?
Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Matt Beat (Electric Needle Room). All images found in public domain or used under fair use guidelines.
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492
Other sources used:
www.acluohio.org/archives/case...
archive.org/stream/bub_gb_ges...
www.huffingtonpost.com/clay-ca...
We Must Not Be Afraid to Be Free: Stories of Free Expression in America
By Ronald K.L. Collins, Sam Chaltain
globalfreedomofexpression.col...
Clarence Brandenburg leads a Ku Klux Klan rally. He invites a Cincinnati TV station out to cover the event. They agree, and film portions of the rally, showing men in robes and hoods, some carrying guns, and others shouting horrible ethnic slurs. They also film them burning of a cross. Brandenburg concluded the rally with a speech, and portions of it ended up airing on TV. In that speech, Brandenburg said “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.” Ok, so I don’t know what that word, “revengeance” means. I Googled it, and Urban Dictionary told me it’s “the act of gaining revenge at a rate of at least 2.54 times greater to that of standard revenge.” So yeah, that doesn’t seem too nice. It seems rather threatening, actually.
After the TV station aired the KKK rally, local authorities arrested Brandenburg for leading the rally and arranging it to be on the news. They charged him with breaking the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act, a law that prohibited promoting violence as a means for social or political change. A local court convicted Brandenburg, fined him $1,000, and sentenced him to one to ten years in prison.
Brandenburg argued that his actions were protected under both the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. Even though he hated the ACLU, he asked them for help after he ran out of money to pay for legal counsel. In early 1968, Brandenburg appealed to the Ohio First District Court of Appeal, which agreed with the lower court. So then he appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, who dismissed his appeal without even giving an opinion. To the courts in Ohio, it was clear that this speech was not protected under the First Amendment, and they used the Supreme Court case Dennis v. United States to back this up.
However, Brandenburg and the ACLU wasn’t done yet. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court heard arguments on February 27, 1969. Brandenburg’s lawyer, Allen Brown, convinced Brandenburg to stay home. Probably for the best. Brown received several threats over the phone for representing a KKK leader. Some even accused him of agreeing with KKK positions. But Brown later said he was just defending free speech.
The Court announced its decision on June 8, 1969, siding unanimously with Brandenburg, and reversing the decisions of the lower courts. Not one judge authored the decision, showing how unified the Court was with it. They argued the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act went against Brandenburg’s right to free speech.
The Court presented what’s known as the Brandenburg test, also more boringly known as the imminent lawless action test. This ended up strengthening the Clear and Present Danger doctrine adopted by the Court and written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States.It also overruled the “bad tendency” test set later by Whitney v. California. The Brandenburg test had two parts. 1) speech can be banned if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” and, most importantly, 2) it is “likely to incite or produce action.” Because Brandenburg’s rally and speech was more vague and didn’t make it seem likely that the KKK was going to actually carry out a revolt against the government, blacks, and Jews, it passed the Brandenburg test. Their speech was protected by the First Amendment.
Brandenburg v. Ohio further protected speech, even speech that was extremely offensive and unpopular. It provided an answer to the debate between those who wanted more government control of speech to keep people safe and those who wanted speech to be as free as possible. The Brandenburg test continues to be the standard when Americans want to punish speech that is meant to get people angry to a point where they violent.

[@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.

[@starbase51shiptestingfacil97]

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.

[@tellthemborissentyou]

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

[@dead.dummy678]

Lmao

[@xp_studios7804]

Revengence is a bigley word

[@alejandrokaplan7243]

XP_Studios that’s some Cofefe

[@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

[@davidnotonstinnett]

"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.

[@kerred]

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.

[@colep8754]

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

[@iammrbeat]

Glad it helped! :D

[@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

[@MasonCookMrFamous]

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

[@12345676571]

Mason Cook 😆😆

[@SylviaRustyFae]

Thats how unanimous they were

[@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.

[@ericyang9404]

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

[@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

[@detwynner5]

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

[@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

[@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

[@mynameisdevon]

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

[@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

[@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

[@NormanMStewart]

Just listened to the audio of the oral arguments for this case. I could barely resist giggling at certain points.

[@moses4769]

Where'd you find the audio?

[@BaFunGool]

Fantastic Work..

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks John! :D

[@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

[@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.

[@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. 🙂

[@anitasebok1841]

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

[@aeris2001]

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

[@Ramiobomb]

OMGOMGOMG It's Mr. Beat :D!

[@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!

[@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

[@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.

[@pimplepoppergang9557]

You are awesome,

[@seekinggodfirst754]

Love the definition for revengeance lol

[@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

[@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

[@blazerplays4961]

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

[@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

[@ricky99la]

The judges got it right

[@hottoddydesigns]

Nice vid, how do you think the courts would rule if this were to happen today?

[@christopherclark1854]

Not as knowledgeable as him, but probably the same. The current court is pretty conservative, and though it hasn't ruled on any hate speech-related cases that I'm aware of, it ruled on Citizens United on the basis of the first amendment. The members of the court seem to take freedom of speech broadly.

[@HistoryNerd808]

@@christopherclark1854 Yep. Conservatives really have embraced the very broad, libertarian view of free speech which to me, is the right way to see it

[@anticorncob6]

@@HistoryNerd808 We'll see how principled they are on free speech when a flag burning case comes up.

[@HistoryNerd808]

@@anticorncob6 It's not going to. That issue was settled in the '80s with Texas v Johnson, back when conservatives still had the traditional limited view of speech that they don't have now. It went 5-4 in favor of speech because Scalia sided with the liberals.

[@SylviaRustyFae]

Well, we will see i guess cuz this legit happened in Jan 2020.

[@yourlocalramen1660]

This video is particularly relevant now.

[@rentslave]

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

[@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!

[@nicholasdigaetano]

Thurgood Marshall to how did that happen?

[@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”

[@Lvlaple4Ever]

Unfortunately here in Cucknada this wouldn’t happen anymore...

[@LeonNikkidude]

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

[@andrewconley6510]

3:48 love your video

[@Netelex]

Probably got this but what was the link to the rally

[@Netelex]

For history

[@williamcfox]

Notification squad!

[@iammrbeat]

+The Exploration Great band name

[@iychtftsootk]

Thanks

[@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

[@anitasebok1841]

Havin the same name as theBrandenburg Gate

[@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.

[@northbridge4665]

Paradox of tolerance though

[@ShihammeDarc]

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

[@420blackbirds8]

I think that in our human history. innocent people gets kill when a individual or a group use our mental and emotional frailty or cultural norm against another group or individual as a tool. Thus the idea of "weaponized" or " weaponization" of these emotional frailty or cultural norm as a means to justify their cause. the Art of "weaponized" or " weaponization" is what i love about south park. time and time again Carman use the rights of transgender, hate for blacks etc as a means of " victimhood" to justify it's use against the same people it was designed to protect. " aka" weaponized" autism ( google it) free speech or right to bare arms are these test to defend one group vs another group. We use it as a human rights tool to bash other nations that don't have it. Making " some" to claim their nations are more " inlighten"

[@brownmcjuggernuggets5292]

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

[@iammrbeat]

+Brown McJuggerNuggets Yes. A great documentary

[@anitasebok1841]

If there is any false case around that s one

[@patchoulicolt7093]

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

[@Orf]

3:00

[@theparadigm8149]

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

[@florinivan6907]

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

[@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

[@Dark40061]

#MrBeat I want more video on Ohio

[@birdstudios978]

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

[@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.

[@laursieloise]

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

[@owenmcanuff7549]

Let the AP Gov cram begin…

[@williammcalister9218]

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

[@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

[@PatriotMapper]

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

[@elisabeeruiz4985]

yes

[@mbxoc954]

I thought you mean the German state Brandenburg

[@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

[@susanlowy3947]

It was 8-0.

[@PARTYGOER_BACKROOMS]

Only in Ohio

[@treyglass4883]

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

[@datfookie6940]

mr brest give money

[@JoshY01]

Revengeance 😂😂

[@DCJNewsMedia]

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

[@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

[@UnevenerGgc2]

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

[@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.

[@chrise8275]

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

[@milkcabbage1217]

i-

[@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?

[@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.

[@JC-mi8fw]

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

[@computerentity]

@@JC-mi8fw Hence, we'll see.

[@tonynguyen6313]

@@JC-mi8fw True. What defines "incitement" is unclear and this may go all the way up to the Supreme Court should Congress impeach and remove him.

[@genghiskhan5701]

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"

[@maxtassy1384]

Mr. Beast

[@anthonyminimum]

1:20 Hey, maybe this law should be Federally instated to punish the BLM rioters….(joking)

[@Locojjona]

Hi

[@iammrbeat]

Happy Friday!

[@Locojjona]

I sick

[@iammrbeat]

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

[@elizabethmerin7489]

Even the person named black sided with bradenburg lol

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@Bryancm2792]

How's here after the third day of impeachment trial

[@starwarsdonthugmeimscared8942]

Me

[@virkmans1]

liked it until your opinion at the end.

[@ThinkerOnTheBus]

It is not legal nor illegal, simply based upon it being fictitious. Hate speech is a myth, at least in the United States, because there is no legal definition of what constitutes hate speech. Additionally, hate crimes (aka - bias crime) carrying more severe punishments is a slippery slope to a judicial system none of us would support, not even those who currently support and believe that harsher penalties for hate crimes is appropriate. However, a crime is a crime regardless of the causation. When a crime is committed directly at an individual or towards a specific group of individuals, does that crime not already have an element of hate within it? If you hate one person based upon the melanin content of their skin (unjustifiable and based in ignorance), and you have equal hatred for another person who has done you wrong (still unjustified and based in ignorance), and you murder both individuals, and you have separate trials for each offense, does one necessitate a more severe punishment than the other?? *_Try to remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions._*

[@PCDelorian]

Yes, the murder committed because of a racial hatred or bias to protected characteristics is by its nature worse than one committed by some unruly passion, further as society has seen with lynchings and Mob rule toward persons of colour, and the continued acceptance of violence to achieve ignorant and bigoted beliefs, it becomes necessary for the court to aggravate such offences to reflect the distain of society as a whole and to deter such abhorrent acts. Hate speech is of course not defined in US law, but in England there is the offence of inciting racial or religious hatred, and similar laws around the world that do define hate speech as opposed to a hate crime. For the record I oppose hate speech laws unless targeted at another where its an extention of harassment, but hate crime laws are important, its also worth remember that presuming judicial discretion hasn't been obliterated which is a separate issue the US in particular needs to resolve, whilst the range of penalties for hate crimes may be harsher there would be considerable overlap such a minor offence as a hate crime would remain less than an aggravated one which isn't, it merely makes racial or religious hatred a form of aggravation. Most of these laws would include any protected characteristic including race, religion, colour, country of origin, ethnic background, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and any relationship or perception of the same.

[@mistermiles3271]

If I fire someone because they have poor work ethic, it's fine. If I fire someone because they are black, I am engaging in racial discrimination and may face a lawsuit. The law already distinguishes the criminality of actions based on motivation, for example, an accidental manslaughter vs. self-defense killing vs. passionate murder

[@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