> Under Brandenburg, even advocacy of criminal conduct is constitutionally protected unless it is "directed" at inciting "imminent lawless action" and "likely" to do so. Bailey's joke plainly did not satisfy either of those prongs.
I just don't understand how a judge would arrive at this interpretation. Imminent lawless action is a very narrow scope and does not overlap with the "fire in a theater" danger of false alarm. How about directed societal, self-harm? Don't call the police if you're sick, they might shoot? This is a demonstrated effect, in areas of the US, prior to the pandemic. This kind of lawless misinformation would be in-addition-to.
I just don't understand how a judge would arrive at this interpretation. Imminent lawless action is a very narrow scope and does not overlap with the "fire in a theater" danger of false alarm. How about directed societal, self-harm? Don't call the police if you're sick, they might shoot? This is a demonstrated effect, in areas of the US, prior to the pandemic. This kind of lawless misinformation would be in-addition-to.