SOURCE: Washington Post
Though Trump’s impeachment is not a criminal trial, his lawyers in their legal briefs referenced Brandenburg v. Ohio, arguing that Trump didn’t direct his supporters to attack the Capitol.
SOURCE: New York Times
Although Trump's second impeachment trial may ultimately be decided by political considerations, the legal question of his culpability for incitement hinges on the question of when speech crosses a line to encouraging action and whether an impeachment trial is governed by different standards of proof than a criminal trial.
SOURCE: Freedom Forum
by Tony Mauro
A First Amendment researcher offers a brief primer on Brandenburg v. Ohio, a case which Trump's legal supporters argue shields his January 6 rhetoric from criminal sanction because it was not purposefully aimed at inciting "imminent lawless action" – a claim critics say is blatantly contradicted by the subsequent actions of a mob a mile away from where Trump spoke.
SOURCE: Inside Higher Ed
Questions of free speech and incitement, plus the demonstrable falsity of many claims made by pro-Trump student activist groups, makes for complicated choices for university administrators who may decide on disciplinary actions against students believed to incite violence.
- Josh Hawley Earns F in Early American History
- Does Germany's Holocaust Education Give Cover to Nativism?
- "Car Brain" Has Long Normalized Carnage on the Roads
- Hawley's Use of Fake Patrick Henry Quote a Revealing Error
- Health Researchers Show Segregation 100 Years Ago Harmed Black Health, and Effects Continue Today
- Nelson Lichtenstein on a Half Century of Labor History
- Can America Handle a 250th Anniversary?
- New Research Shows British Industrialization Drew Ironworking Methods from Colonized and Enslaved Jamaicans
- The American Revolution Remains a Hotly Contested Symbolic Field
- Untangling Fact and Fiction in the Story of a Nazi-Era Brothel