Please explain. Is this not an exception to the idea of total, unbridled freedom of speech? Among others, of course. I’m simply saying that no Constitutional freedom is without exception. Freedom of the press should also have limits. Knowingly lying under that protection of “press” is one.

So you want a government ministry of truth? Yikes, dude!

This is a disingenuous interpretation of what I said. In fact, I never said anything even remotely close to this so I wonder if I should even continue this dialogue with you. It doesn’t seem as if you’re being honest with me. If you have a serious counter, please share it.

Seems like this dude very falsely thinks "the press" that is protected by the 1A is just media orgs.

And that nobody ever lied when the First Amendment was written.

No, it is not an exception and it *never was*. That statement was part of the dicta in the Schenk case and was never "good law". The entire case has since been overturned. Odd that you want to have a myth that came out of a case you said was an "injustice" as an exemplar.

Lying according to who?

A jury of your peers.

Are you envisioning a civil or criminal process?

I’m not the best person to ask this (not a legal scholar) but some pathway to hold “the press” accountable when they abuse the power of their freedom. If “the press” convinced their audience to take matters into their own hands and execute a local prisoner, should they not be liable? Somehow?

Depends what exactly it meant by "convinced."

Homicide is not protected by the first amendment. Speech is. You can’t port the processes for one to the law of the other.

Very good point. But would “the press” not be liable for inciting a murder, just as I would be if I misused speech to incite violence? Thanks for the exchange, by the way. I am learning here.

My advice: read up on Brandenburg v. Ohio. Short version: you're gonna have problems with showing the imminent nature of the incitement.

If it was actual incitement under the legal standard, yes. That is a VERY high bar that is nearly impossible to meet, and in fact I’m having trouble coming up with a fact pattern by which the press could do so even hypothetically. There’s also the additional problem of defining “the press.”

You'd basically have to have someone like, say, a Jesse Watters, up on stage, whipping a crowd into a murderous frenzy, and then saying "Now go kill the bastards!!!" and the crowd then immediately does it. And even then, in this climate, I'd figure that'd be a tough conviction to get to stick.

Thank you again for engaging in this discussion I am realizing that there are a couple of fundamental problems here. The first, is that I am not a lawyer and certainly not a legal scholar. This ties to the second problem that I see…

I am not at all attempting to explain how the law works. Referencing case law isn’t required from my argument. I am not in any way trying to say what precedent tells us about the way the law should work. What I am doing is presenting some pie in the sky idea about how the law should work.

I think the best real world example I can think of is Radio Télévision des Mille Collines during the Rwandan genocide. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found several instances of the naming of specific locations/individuals around Kigali who were then attacked.

You would *not* be liable either, unless you uttered speech which is both directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action and likely to incite or produce such action. And "imminent" has been defined by the courts to basically mean "right now".

If by “convince” you mean “incite to imminent lawless action” (Brandenburg v Ohio), you hit the nail on the head. That doesn’t apply just the press, but anyone.

I ask because while this is a *deeply* problematic answer either way, the exact nature and scope of the problems varies by the nature of the process.

Found Brendon Carr's burner account!

So you want the Trump regime deciding who gets to exercise their free speech rights???

And we were talking about Schenck, which makes it even more egregious.

You are talking about Schenck. I dismissed the reference.