Incitement: Modernizing the standard

© Getty Images
With civil and criminal proceedings under way in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, one thing is clear: Allegations of incitement will be hard to sustain unless the Supreme Court modernizes its rulings on the issue. 
The Court ruled in the 1969 case of 
Brandenburg v. Ohio that speech is constitutionally protected except where it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” That decision has grown increasingly problematic as the modes, channels and consequences of modern communication have changed fundamentally the context to which it is being applied. The Court struggled admirably to enhance freedom of speech, with Justices Douglas and Black rejecting the “clear and present danger” doctrine framed earlier by Justice Holmes. Yet Holmes’ underlying metaphor lingers: Who can claim the right to shout fire in a crowded theater? 

Related Keywords

North Carolina ,United States ,Ohio ,John Milton ,Mitch Mcconnell ,Rudolf Giuliani ,Justice Holmes ,Learned Hand ,David Hale ,Supreme Court ,Circuit Court ,Justices Douglas ,Yet Holme ,District Judge David Hale ,Sixth Circuit Court ,வடக்கு கரோலினா ,ஒன்றுபட்டது மாநிலங்களில் ,ஓஹியோ ,ஜான் மில்டன் ,மிட்ச் ம்க்காநெல் ,ருடால்ப் கியுலியானி ,நீதி ஹோம்ஸ் ,கற்று கை ,டேவிட் ஹேல் ,உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் ,சுற்று நீதிமன்றம் ,நீதிபதிகள் டக்ளஸ் ,இன்னும் ஹோல்ம் ,மாவட்டம் நீதிபதி டேவிட் ஹேல் ,ஆறாவது சுற்று நீதிமன்றம் ,