Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

LifeFuel The Anti-Riot-Act: two U.S. federal appeals courts recently reaffirm that "advocacy of violence" is protected by First Amendment

PPEcel

PPEcel

RIP Saint Brian Laundrie (1997-2021)
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
23,518
Online
173d 3h 4m
Given that Redditcucks frequently levy accusations that incels are "inciting violence" and consequently deserve arrest and censorship by the FBI in particular (yikerinos!), from time to time I like to write threads exploring First Amendment jurisprudence. This thread is about whether the mere advocacy of violence is “free speech” in the U.S. The answer is yes.

Background

Title X of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, more commonly known as the "Anti-Riot Act" or the "Civil Obedience Act", was passed amidst the unrest after MLK’s assassination. Its objective was simple: to allow the federal government to pursue charges against rioters in cases that would usually be left to state authorities. Notably, the Act also criminalizes speech that constitutes “incitement”, “urge”, or “encouragement” to riot. 18 U.S.C. §2102(b) expands the definition of “inciting a riot” to include “advocacy of acts of violence” or “assertion of the rightness of [acts of violence]”.

Given the racially charged nature of the Act, federal prosecutions under these provisions (18 U.S.C. §2101 and §2102) have been extremely rare, until the mid-2010s, where the Department of Justice began pursuing federal rioting charges against white supremacists, Black Lives Matter rioters, and Capitol insurrectionists alike.

Imminent lawless action

In the first half of the 20th century, the Supreme Court took a dim view of the First Amendment, holding that federal and state governments could criminalize speech that posed a “clear and present danger” (Schenck v. United States), or a “bad tendency” (Abrams v. United States and Whitney v. California).

This changed with Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Under Brandenburg, inflammatory expression was protected unless it was directed to incite imminent lawless action. In Hess v. Indiana (1973), the Supreme Court clarified that for speech to be unprotected under this particular narrow exception to the First Amendment, it had to satisfy a two-prong test: the likelihood requirement and the imminence requirement. In other words, Brandenburg proscribes the state from criminalizing speech that isn’t likely to produce violence, or speech that merely advocates violence at an indefinite future time.

To this day, Brandenburg sets the United States apart from other liberal democracies in upholding freedom of expression, protecting speech that could be considered criminal in, say, Canada or Germany. And fifty years later, the federal judiciary continues to apply Brandenburg and Hess in deciding the boundaries of protected speech.

Fourth Circuit: United States v. Miselis (2020)


Here’s a Harvard Law Review article on this case that goes into greater detail.

In 2018, two men belonging to the Rise Above Movement, a white supremacist fight club, were charged with conspiracy in the Western District of Virginia under the Anti-Riot Act; they entered a conditional guilty plea. On appeal, they argued that the Act violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The 4th Circuit unanimously let stand the provisions of the Act that did not involve First Amendment-protected activity -- namely, the physical act of rioting -- and upheld their convictions. However, applying Brandenburg, they declared the Act partially overbroad and unconstitutional, and severed the provisions that criminalized “promoting”, “encouraging”, “urging”, “advocacy of”, and “assertion of the rightness of” a riot.

In February 2021, Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar notified Congress of her intent to not pursue a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, letting the 4th Circuit’s ruling stand.


Ninth Circuit: United States v. Rundo (2021)


Just one month later, in March 2021, the 9th Circuit reached the exact same conclusion as the Fourth Amendment: that the Anti-Riot Act was partially unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Four men also belonging to the Rise Above Movement were charged under similar provisions in the Anti-Riot Act in the Central District of California. The district court judge dismissed the indictment and ruled the entirety of the Act unconstitutional. On appeal, however, the 9th Circuit conducted a severability test and ruled 2-1 that the unconstitutional provisions could be excised, reversing the district court.

Commentary

If you are a blackpilled incel, you've inevitably come across some version or another of these cliches, directed at you.
Stochastic terrorism is not free speech. You are a terrorist.
Hate speech is not free speech. You should all be raped in prison.
Threats/incitement/etc. are not free speech. Where is the FBI tip line?

Normies, in my experience, have trouble distinguishing between normative and descriptive statements. They confuse what they think the law should be with what the law is.

The truth is U.S. law does not recognize the phrase "hate speech", nor does it recognize "stochastic terrorism". And with regards to threats and incitement, over decades of precedent, the courts have shaped narrowly tailored definitions of such. The mere advocacy of violence (i.e. "Stacies should be raped") is protected speech, as opposed to true threats or incitement to imminent lawless action.

This forum may not have survived without Brandenburg. That the federal judiciary continues to reaffirm the principles behind this landmark First Amendment case, in Miselis and Rundo and a multitude of other cases, is extremely based.
 
Last edited:
wereqryan

wereqryan

The living shall envy the dead
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Posts
12,910
Online
228d 16h 22m
Who cares about all this shit? If they want to persecute you (which they indeed do), they will find the means, one way or the other, bending the laws as they see fit.
 
rope2cope

rope2cope

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
May 30, 2019
Posts
6,341
Online
131d 17h 13m
Based, someone should minecraft all FBI agents :feelsUgh:
 
Robtical

Robtical

Had it with these cucks
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Posts
30,176
Online
379d 17h 10m
Dotrinfobe

Dotrinfobe

acabou
★★
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Posts
2,680
Online
48d 15h 22m
i work for the fbi
 
squirrelsonfire2

squirrelsonfire2

Mentally crippled by pussyless existence
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Posts
8,399
Online
84d 15h 57m
wereqryan said:
Who cares about all this shit? If they want to persecute you (which they indeed do), they will find the means, one way or the other, bending the laws as they see fit.
 
IncelCatechumen

IncelCatechumen

Officer
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 2, 2021
Posts
961
Online
17d 9h 10m
wereqryan said:
Who cares about all this shit? If they want to persecute you (which they indeed do), they will find the means, one way or the other, bending the laws as they see fit.
lmao :feelsseriously:
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

RIP Saint Brian Laundrie (1997-2021)
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
23,518
Online
173d 3h 4m
Dotrinfobe said:
i work for the fbi
how many stacies are there at the fbi
 
TallCelFag

TallCelFag

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Posts
5,909
Online
96d 2h 36m
Based 1st amendment
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

RIP Saint Brian Laundrie (1997-2021)
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
23,518
Online
173d 3h 4m
Caesercel

Caesercel

Just pass me the rope already
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Posts
13,699
Online
174d 32m
Look at all this law shit I won't read
 
Kurt Gödel

Kurt Gödel

Proud MSTOW
★★★
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Posts
3,259
Online
70d 22h 11m
Caesercel said:
Look at all this law shit I won't read
You should. It's something based.
 
0Energy0Happyness

0Energy0Happyness

I think u a fed
★★★
Joined
Mar 1, 2021
Posts
4,708
Online
39d 9h 36m
The law doesn't work when it's for (((their))) zombies
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

RIP Saint Brian Laundrie (1997-2021)
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
23,518
Online
173d 3h 4m
Note: I just realized I made a typo. I meant to say "the 9th Circuit reached the exact same conclusion as the 4th Circuit", not the 4th Amdt.
 
Emba

Emba

Jarjar Sphinx
★★★★★
Joined
May 19, 2019
Posts
29,604
Online
115d 14h 49m
Only feral niggers can legally riot and destroy çities. That's the way the jews want it.

If someone postes a sticker saying,

"It's ok to be White"

They are obviously hate filled criminals.. (Because the hand symbol for OK, means "White power" in Nazi sign language.)
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

RIP Saint Brian Laundrie (1997-2021)
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
23,518
Online
173d 3h 4m
Emba said:
Only feral niggers can legally riot and destroy çities. That's the way the jews want it.

If someone postes a sticker saying,

"It's ok to be White"

They are obviously hate filled criminals.. (Because the hand symbol for OK, means "White power" in Nazi sign language.)
Huh?
 
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top