Read on Twitter
on christmas eve 1913 in calumet, michigan, a large crowd was attending a benefit party at the italian hall (pictured) to support the children of striking copper miners. someone yelled 'fire!' causing a stampede as people rushed down from the second floor... 1/12 (cw: death)
seventy-three people were trampled and killed on the stairwell, 59 of them children. but there was no fire. the whole thing was a lie, likely started by opposition to the striking miners. but no one was ever held responsible. 2/12
pictured: mass grave via: https://www.mlive.com/news/2017/12/1913_italian_hall_disaster_was.html
pictured: mass grave via: https://www.mlive.com/news/2017/12/1913_italian_hall_disaster_was.html
in 1919, this incident and others, inspired the judgment of justice oliver wendell holmes jr. in schenck v. united states. holmes said 'falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic' was the type of speech that could be deemed illegal because it could cause violence 3/12
however the case holmes was arguing against was a man whose 'crime' was distributing pamphlets opposing the wwi draft. one could argue opposing war is the opposite of inciting violence. nonetheless holmes ruled resisting the draft was not protected speech under 1st amendment 4/12
that was pm the case until 1969 when the u.s. supreme court would rule in brandenburg v. ohio establishing that 'speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the first amendment unless the speech is likely to incite “imminent lawless action."'5/12 https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-ohio
for more bg on brandenburg, i suggest the previous link, but in short he was a kkk leader who said pres. nixon was 'suppressing' the white race and planned a march on washington, but that wasn't enough to constitute 'imminent lawless action' according to the supreme court. 6/12
ok so clearly some speech can cause violence but what even is imminent lawless action? is that what happened last week—did maga leaders really incite that mob? i'll let legal experts decide. here's len niehoff of the university of michigan law school: 7/12
https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2021/01/08/trump-incitement-us-capitol-attack/6589465002/
https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2021/01/08/trump-incitement-us-capitol-attack/6589465002/
for balance, here's attorney jeremy shapiro in wsj, after bragging about convicting codepink, saying the president's rally before the insurrection wasn't incitement because he mentioned the word 'peacefully' or something. not very convincing to me. 8/12
https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-trump-isnt-guilty-of-incitement-11610303966
https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-trump-isnt-guilty-of-incitement-11610303966
i guess some folks literally need the president to spell it out for them and cuz he didn't say 'go beat a cop to death with a fire extinguisher' he's absolved of responsibility for what happened. 9/12
this should be easy. when he said 'we will not let them silence your voices' and the crowd responded 'fight for trump!' and then went and started a literal fight with cops, what the hell else is that besides 'imminent lawless action?'
10/12 https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6
10/12 https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6
but i digress. my point here was mostly to shed some history and point out that, as with holmes, the govt will sometimes use this 'imminent lawless action' argument to suppress nonviolent speech, when it's often clear as glass what this means. at least it is to me. 11/12
something to keep in mind as biden floats drafting new anti-terrorism legislation that will predictably be used against black lives matter, extinction rebellion and others fighting injustice. i hope this gives folks some extra context. hang in there. 12/12
