Is incitement to insurrection and talk of sedition the same as "free speech"?

[kentuck]

Are there not limits to free speech?

Just what is the definition of "free speech"?

Were Trump, Rudy, Don Jr, Mo Brooks, et al practicing "free speech" on the day of the insurrection? Or were they inciting violence?

I would think FB and Twitter would have a very good argument at keeping him off their platforms?

[RussBLib]

1. sounds like a question for the courts

I think it might have something to do with skin color. Maybe. As in, who is doing the insurrecting?

[ProudMNDemocrat]

2. How I interpret FREE SPEECH as

The right to petition and verbally criticize Government without retaliation from said Government.

One cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

[Moostache]

4. Exactly! There is no Constitutional right to freedom FROM consequences of speech either...

The protection of speech in the Bill of Rights is explicitly there to prevent the government (NOT PRIVTAE COMPANIES) from declaring opposing viewpoints illegal.

Trump LIED about the election and the "massive fraud" (of which 60+ lawsuits were adjudicated and established that none of Trump's statements were true) was itself a fraud. He was banned for inciting followers to violence ("fight like hell", "we're going to the Capitol", "and I'll be right there with you&quot on January 6th.

The government did not tell Facebook or Twitter or anyone else that Trump could not say those things...but those companies determined that his behavior was in violation of PRIVATE TERMS OF SERVICE agreements.

These lawsuits should be thrown out of every courtroom that they make it into and Trump should be charged with legal fees for any defense that the companies must mount.

[secondwind]

3. I put this speech in the same category with yelling "fire"

in a crowded theater, for sh*ts and giggles.

[Blue Owl]

7. Exactly.

The Slobfather needs to learn, better late than never, that actions have consequences...

[rsdsharp]

5. I believe it falls under the "fighting words" exception.

Fighting words were defined by the Supreme Court in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), as words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

[Caliman73]

6. Two different issues.

On your point, yes, there are limits to free speech. That is established. The challenge is to determine when the line has been crossed. John Adams, when he pushed the Alien and Sedition Acts, was criticized sharply by many who thought he was becoming authoritarian. There has been debate about it ever since.

The FBI didn't want Billie Holliday singing "Strange Fruit" and agitating for Civil Rights, so they went after her on other grounds. That is the government stifling Free Speech, though not in a direct attack on her song. Lenny Bruce and Larry Flint were also targets of government for violating decency standards. Those are Free Speech situations. I would argue that Trump, Brooks, et al were inciting and seditious, but that needs to be determined in a court of law.

The Facebook and Twitter issue is separate. The First Amendment applies to what government can do regarding speech. Facebook and Twitter are not part of government. They are private platforms that have their own rules and terms of service. They don't need any kind of good argument to kick people off their platform. They just need to follow their own policies.