WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.1K

It could save you quite a lot of central bank digital notes.

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine).

It could save you quite a lot of central bank digital notes. >In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine).

(post is archived)

Who is this new violent Anticlutch and what have you done with our bitchy argumentative but lovable Clutchy?

[–] 0 pt

Read the thread faggot. Nothing about this is violent, if it were then it would be illegal and I wouldn't have posted it. I sourced a supreme court decision specifically for that reason.