POSC 130g 1st Edition Lecture 22 Current LectureMatthewUnprotected and protected speechActivist in Richmond, VirginiaPolice were trying to drag homeless people outside of the cities and would punish any of those that were feeding the homelessWent to law school to be a better activistTwo different kinds of activist lawyers: Cause lawyers who act on neutral principles and defend on no matter the issue and Movement lawyers who act as tools for political movementsMovement lawyers make themselves available for activism and movement. There is a benefit of empowering movement. The positions aren’t necessarily neutral. Movement lawyers act the same as corporations use lawyers. He believes in the power of empowering grassroots organizations and to stand up for organizations that they support. Movements he supported: First Amendment boundariesWhat one can say and when they go too far: Brandenburg v. OH- classic speech of jurisprudence; embodies modern idea of how far the first amendment goes. Brandenburg is in KKK and invites a reporter. They burned a cross and the reporter taped and said this is what they are going to do to the black people and threaten revenge against the Supreme Court. Brandenburg was arrested and was sentenced to a term of 1 to 10 years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision but agreed to hear the case. The court reversed the decision and he hadn’t done anything yet. This isn’t the same as preparing a group for violence. The Constitution guarantees that Advocacy: protected, Incitement: which can be prescribed but they need to intend to incite a crowd to take a legal action, must be imminent that it was about to happen right there, and it was likely. Sheriffs were asked to remove protestors from blocking the door of the building, the sheriffs arrested two, but all the demonstrators blocked the car and the sheriffs had the deputies force people off the street. Gregory Hess yells “we will take the fucking street later.” He goes to trialand said this was advocacy of the legal action. This went to the Indiana Supreme Court and said the conviction was find. The Supreme Court said that Hess couldn’t be punished on his words alone. The court said he intended to get people to come out into the street, but because he said later, not right now, it wasn’t imminent and therefore not happening right now. You can advocate for some extreme legal matters but not be arrested because it wasn’t imminent. Watts v United States: Robert Watts was a young man at a anti-war demonstration in 1960 and it was a protest of about 200 people. He said “he just got my draft card, im supposed to report, but I'm not going.” Secret Service arrested him and people clapped jokingly but he was arrested.He was arrested for threatening the president. Supreme Court said that the court must decide what is a threat vs. political hyperbole. The court said this was a hyperbole because there is no evidence he was going to kill the president and that is not something definite. Political hyperbole is protected under the First Amendment. NAACP v. Claire Hardware- Civil rights movement is moving and has victories in Nonviolence with Martin Luther King. NAACP in Mississippi is organizing a boycott of all white businesses in the town. Business owners challenged this in a Supreme Court that had elements of criminality and majesty, one man was held accountable for it because of his involvement in NAACP. Charles Overs said the blacks would be watched and anyone who didn’t follow the boycotts would have their necks boycotted. Two days later, Overs told the audience that they will break their neck if they go in the white businesses. The violators had their names published in the black times and were branded traitors in the black cause. They were put to social ostracism and sometimes beat, robbed, slashed tires, shot into homes. The NAACP themselves organized that there was legal defense and funds for people who were charged with the crimes against the boycott violators. In Mississippi, everyone was convicted and the boycotts were illegal and Overs could be punished for his acts. In the Supreme Court, the NAACP and Charles Overs speech were protected because he hadn’t taken a role in any of the robbing activities and it was not direct speech but exaggerated. It wasn’t as if Overs said let’s break people’s necks and someone’s necks were broken immediately. Strong rhetoric can not be against the First Amendment.In 1990s, abortion has been an issue. A lot of activism was moving onlinePlanned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activist: American Coalition printed 12 wantedposters of Doctors that provided abortions. The posters had their names, addresses, etc. Two of the doctors after the publication were later murdered and there was no allegation between the party and the people that carried out the murders. They were targets of the pro life movementbecause they lived in an urban area. The organization continued to print more posters and provided the addresses again.The Nuremburg files had information on doctors and people who supported abortion. Black font was working, grey font meant wounded, and the one with a strike through it was fatality. American Coalition files a case against them and said there were corrupt organization and worksthis way to the opinion. Is this advocacy and encouraging people to kill doctors? Even if this is intent, is it imminent and likely? It goes up to the 9th Circuit and it goes to a panel of three judges and says it protected. They then had a panel of 11 because they didn’t agree and they split 6-5. The websites aren’t advocacy but they are true threats to the doctors and they aren’t political hyperbole. The 9th Circuit found that though there is no known connection between American Coalition and the deaths, they knew the effects the posters would have on the doctors and they kept making the posters after the murders. It wasn’t the act of printing the posters but continuing to print the posters after the doctors were killed. The context surrounding the posters changed and this made it a threat. It was a hard ruling and ACLU filed briefs on different sides and it was a real case on the fringes. The ultimate ruling of Planned Parenthood gave ammunition to incite. One says advocacy is protected, another says advocacy is a threat. The government is using a different name calling the same speech a different name. How robust our free speech is