Unfortunately, Palin is within her rights to say things that may incite violence.

[Kablooie]

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, made speeches with reference to the possibility of "revengeance" against "niggers," "Jews," and those who supported them.

Brandenburg was convicted of advocating violence under Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.

The Brandenburg test was the Court's last major statement on what government may do about inflammatory speech that seeks to incite others to lawless action.

As of 2008, the Brandenburg test is still the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test the outer limits of Brandenburg, so the test remains largely unqualified.

---

So she could possibly be challenged but it would be a long haul to prosecute and even longer before a decision could be made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. So what?

The issue is political, not legal.

[Viking12]

13. A thread yesterday was making the absurd argument that Palin should be "investigated" for incitement

Seems as if some believe that we should join in on the shredding of the Constitution.

[dkf]

2. She is within her rights to say these things, but she shows herself to be irresponsible

and unworthy of the Vice Presidency.

[SoonerPride]

3. But you can't advocate killing THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Can you?

[Political Heretic]

6. She didn't.

[unpossibles]

7. she's technically not "advocating" it so much as giving her lunatic base an excuse to do it

on their own.

Trust me, it sucks and it's BS and scary, but not technically illegal. Unethical, yes.

That's the problem: they can claim to have no part in it, despite knowing full well what they are saying and how their idiot rimjob fans will take it.

[Abacus]

4. Of course she is,

the issue is whether she should.

[palintology]

5. Any chance Palin is aware of this Supreme Court case :)

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. "Um, they were like a groovy bunch of black ladies that sang really cool"

D'oh.

[grannie4peace]

8. it could be a thorn in her side for a long time/ that sounds good

[RichGirl]

9. First Ammendment rights...

DO NOT give people the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. She is doing essentially the same thing.

[jberryhill]

10. No, it's not the same thing legally

By "imminent" harm or "clear and present" harm, the relevant case law defines bodily injury and violence right there on the spot, and in direct response to the incitement.

I was not aware that Senator Obama was present at Palin rallies and that she was directing anyone to do anything to anybody right then and there.

Aside from which, as a practical matter your comparison is demonstrably false, unless I've been missing the reports of widespread injury and public disorder resulting from Palin rallies.

[Viking12]

17. A typically out of context use of Holme's famous quote.

Justice Holmes:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fir in a theater, and causing a panic.

As the previous poster suggests the standards for demonstrating incitement to imminent lawless action are quite high, thankfully.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. Then she had better be ready to suffer the consequences of those words, too.

Cuts both ways.................

[JitterbugPerfume]

14. she knows exactly what she is doing

and if she doesn't cool it she could have blood on her hands.

[progressivebydesign]

15. there is LAW and there is DECENCY. n/t

[City Lights]

16. Sure she is, but the things she's saying show she's unfit for the office she seeks.

Can't stand her. :thumbsdown:

[Viking12]

18. Precisely. The correct repsonse is "more and better" speech.