> n 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
I would argue that the elements of Trump's speech on Jan 6th satisfy all the elements in the lawless action test:
- Trump gave a speech on January 6th, the same date as the insurrection.
- In this speech he directed his supporters to march on the capitol with his support.
- His supporters did actually march on the Capitol, then proceeded to violently occupy it.
Regardless of Trump's inner mind, it is clear that his followers believed that his intent was for them to march on the Capitol while the election was being certified and forcefully disrupt those proceedings.
It seems to me this is a very strong case that Trump's speech did in fact incite the violence that occurred that day, and the very short amount of time separating those events make it easy to argue that one was the immediate cause of the other.
We are not talking about trump. We are talking about Apple, who is forcing other companies to censor their user’s speech and acting as judge and jury on what is acceptable.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...