Free speech?

[Anonymous]

Mark Williams, of the Tea Party Express wrote (in his personal blog) a pointedly insulting series of comments about Muslims (http://www.marktalk.com/blog/?p=9636). My question: Given that freedom of speech does not include yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium, does it include this invitation to someone to strap on an explosive vest and come into the next public gathering where Williams is scheduled to appear? I hope his stupidity is ignored, but it sure looks to me like he's courting martyrdom; I just hope they don't catch him in a crowd.

[jsteele]

I believe that free speech now does include yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium. While that once was an example of the limits of free speech, if I'm not mistaken, a court ruling superseded that limitation. Regardless, this should end the pretext of the Tea Party being a tolerant bunch without a prejudiced bone in their bodies. A group of people that doesn't like to be called Tea Baggers should be very careful about referring to a "monkey-god".

When Louis Farrakhan called Judiasm a gutter religion, he was ostracized and no respectable politician could associate with him. Obama had to go through a ritual denunciation, for example. The same should be true for Mark Williams. He should be given the Farrakhan treatment and all white males should be required to denounce him.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:... He should be given the Farrakhan treatment and all white males should be required to denounce him.

Me first! Well, not quite, an "activist for Tea Party Patriots" has already denounced him, but the Tea Party Express just pointed out that he was speaking as an individual, not for the group.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I believe that free speech now does include yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium. While that once was an example of the limits of free speech, if I'm not mistaken, a court ruling superseded that limitation. ...

Good point Jeff. According to Wikipedia (not an unimpeachable source, but I'm anonymous, right?): "The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot)." If Williams did induce a bombing, that might be a foreseeable lawless act. But would it be classified as imminent?