LIMITING MURDEROUS FREE SPEECH
When messages advocating murderous violence flow to large numbers of people . . . government probably should have the authority to stop speakers from expressly advocating the illegal use of force to kill people. There is little democratic value in protecting counsels of murder, and the ordinary . . . requirements might be loosened where the risks are so great. Congress made it a crime to threaten to assassinate the president, and the Court has cast no doubt on that restriction of speech. It would be a short step, not threatening legitimate public dissent, for the Federal Communications Commission to impose civil sanctions on those who expressly advocate illegal, violent acts aimed at killing people. . . . Of course, there are serious problems in drawing the line between counsels of violence that should be subject to regulation and those that should not. I suggest that restrictions be limited to express advocacy of unlawful killing because it is the…
To view this resource, log in or sign up for a subscription plan
