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.
- Oklahoma ACLU Files Suit Against State Ban on Critical Race Theory
- St. Malo, Louisiana, Site of Earliest Filipino-American Settlement, Threatened by Climate Change
- Executive Privilege was out of Control Before Steve Bannon Claimed It
- Can Skeletons Have Racial Identity?
- Diver Discovers 900-Year-Old Sword Dating to the Crusades
- Leonard Moore: On Teaching Black History to White People
- How Cigarettes Became a Civil Rights Issue
- David Graeber and David Wengrow Have Given Human History a Rewrite
- Dems Worry Not Passing Biden Agenda Will Kill Them in the Midterms. Does Legislation Actually Matter?
- #HATM: "Historians at the Movies" Builds Community One Screening at a Time