Alt-right rallies in Charlottesville, VA

[GMDino]

(08-15-2017, 10:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: From a legal standpoint, I don't agree with this nor do I think you can make the argument that they're inciting ethnic cleansing by just waving flags and looking like complete douche bags with their fascist shields and tiki torches. 

I also don't think the courts would agree that those actions amount to that.

https://legaldictionary.net/symbolic-speech/

Quote:Freedom of Speech and Symbolism


In the centuries since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the idea of free speech has grown to mean freedom of expression. This is because the courts, and therefore the people, understood that the framers of the Constitution intended that the people be free to express themselves, without fear of governmental reprisal.

In times of strife, U.S. citizens began publicly expressing themselves in more forthright ways. While the colonists who engaged in the protest now known as the “Boston Tea Party,” saw the action as an extreme measure, they were all engaged against the same foe. As America moved through the 20th century, many people began seeking yet more social and political change, often making their points through symbolic speech.

Demonstrations, riots, sit-ins, and parades occurred more frequently, and protesters expressed themselves in ways that scandalized others. Handmade signs expressing protesters’ opinions, carried in protest marches and sit-ins, were often seen as derogatory; and other actions, such as flag burning, inflamed the emotions of others.

Many people who disagree with, not only the ideas of such protesters, but their methods, might think they’ve gone too far in their actions, and that such disrespectful displays should be banned. The question, however, became one of intent: What did the Founding Fathers intend that true freedom should mean to the citizens of the new nation?

Limits to Free Speech

Although symbolic speech has long been included in the people’s freedom of speech, it does not mean that people are free to say – or express – anything they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. The Supreme Court has determined that certain expressions, such as those considered to be obscene, the spouting of lies about someone, and those inciting violence or sedition, are not free. This is because such expressions are deemed to cause harm to the people in general.

What this means, in legal terms, is that there must be a way to determine what types of speech are protected, and what types of expression should be banned. Restrictions on the First Amendment right to free speech have been developed over the years, as the Supreme Court has made decisions on types of expression that are harmful.

Incitement to Violence

Statements or actions that incite others to engage in violence are not protected under the First Amendment. In 1969, members of the Ku Klux Klan were convicted of advocating violence as a means of political reform. One of the men’s speeches referred to taking revenge against “niggers,” and “Jews,” and everyone who supported them.

The Supreme Court had previously ruled that promotion of the use of violence or force is not protected, if it is done in a way that is likely to result in such action. However, in this example of symbolic speech under fire, the Court reversed the Klan conviction, as the statements made at the rally did not create an imminent intent to do violence.