LAWYERS: EASY 10 PTS Hypothetical situation, would he be thrown in jail?

Let's say BOB is dissatisfied with the way the President and our national government are behaving and he wants to encourage people to join with him in starting a revolution (a military overthrow of our gov't)

Is this "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" and would it apply to his freedom to say whatever he wants?

Would it be okay or would he be thrown in jail?


ONLY SEIROUS ANSWERS
THANKS A BUNCH :)

no need to be a lawyer

just need good hard facts and clear answers

THANKS A BUNCH

It's illegal - incitment to commit a crime - but it would not constitute a clear and present danger, no.

If he gathered up 1,000 of his followers and marched on the White House waving guns, THAT would be a clear and present danger.

Richard

I don't remember what the standard is for clear and present danger, but you have asked three questions: what can you think; what can you say; and what can you do? Basically, you can think whatever you want; you can say anything short of inciting to riot; and you an do anything to promote change that does not impinge upon the guaranteed freedoms of your fellow citizens. Marching up and down and yelling is allowed. Damaging property, frightening people, or plotting violent insurrection is not.

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and conspiracy to commit treason.

If ONE person commits an act based on his speech, he will be arrested and convicted.

Not a lawyer, btw.

Freedom of speech does not include forming a group to take over the government. Homeland security would definetely take action. This is considered domestic terrorism. Yes arrests would definetly happen.

Anyone promoting a military overthrow of the government needs to be locked away.

he is talking testosterone influenced adolescent talk.

Not a lawyer, but the way our government has been changing I'd say he'd end up in a jail cell.

The "Clear and Present Danger" test was created during WW1 so at that time he most likely would have been send to jail; later "Clear and Present Danger" was replaced by "Imminent lawless action" test in 1969 after (Brandenburg v. Ohio) Brandenburg a KKK member was doing something similar to your example (all talk, no action) so the Supreme Court said "...the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Under this philosophy Bob wouldn't be accused of anything unless he get followers willing to do what he ask and they all start planning. Talking only in generic terms is not enough. Now if he tried to create a riot (or any other imminet crime) then he can be arrested at the very right moment.

"Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_la...

In other examples if he says in TV "Vegetarians must die" then, right or wrong, he would be OK to express his "opinion", but if he says on TV "John Do, from 123 street is a vegetarian and he must die" then Bob would be arrested for inciting to a murder, because is obvious that Bob knows that some meat-loving psycho might just do it, so his words can create an IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION against John.

Another example: Bob says "Suicidals must jump from buildings", he can say that; but he can't say "You up-there, Jump from that building" to a suicidal guy that's on the top of a building.

Anyway some cases are too complex so they must be seen independently. But basically the "constitutionally protected speech" is not an absolute right., it can't be abused.