In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and even cause unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).
He feels threatened, though. That violates his NAP.
If these were black kids playing across the street rather than armed FBI agents pounding on his door, he likely would have tried to gun them down already.
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and even cause unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).
sure, but this guy is not even being charged with anything. we are talking about a warning.
He feels threatened, though. That violates his NAP.
If these were black kids playing across the street rather than armed FBI agents pounding on his door, he likely would have tried to gun them down already.
Nor should he be. What he said was most likely “protected” speech.
but very close to not being protected, hence the warning.
I mean if Trump’s speech for Jan 6 didn’t count…
Trump was actually arrested for that though.
Although it was for more than just the speech.