This article is part of the Free Speech Project, a collaboration between Future Tense and the Tech, Law, & Security Program at American University Washington College of Law that examines the ways technology is influencing how we think about speech.
TRUMP INCITES MOB read the banner headline on the Jan. 7 New York Times the morning after a seditious crowd stormed the Capitol to try to block certification of the 2020 election results. Aside from certain loyalists, it seems that most agree that under the colloquial understanding of incite, Trump incited the insurrection. Even some insurrectionists pointed the finger at him, like the one who said, We were invited by the president of the United States, as they lay siege to the Capitol.
When the Senate tries Trump on the single charge in his second impeachmentINCITEMENT OF INSURRECTIONit will doubtless consider whether his incendiary Jan. 6 diatribe is protected expression under the First Amendment, as his defenders claim. The question will also be central in a criminal prosecution if the D.C. attorney generals current investigation leads to an indictment. So, did Trumps words satisfy a legal definition of incitement, whether in a criminal court or his Senate trial?
To answer that question, we have to start with Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). In an opinion joined by all of the justices, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader under a state statute that criminalized advocacy of crime violence, or other unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of effecting political change and barred assembly with any group that promoted such doctrines. The court held that the law criminalized too much speech because it failed to distinguish between mere advocacy at the heart of political speech and incitement to imminent lawless action, which the First Amendment does not protect.
The Brandenburg ruling proclaimed that freedom of speech protects advocacy of the use of force or of illegal acts except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. That test continues to govern incitement law.
Brandenburg involved an appeal from a criminal conviction by a Ku Klux Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, who had advised the hooded crowd at a Klan gathering that if the federal government continue[d] to suppress the Caucasian race, its possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken. A wooden cross was burned during the rally, and a video revealed weapons. No acts followed. Brandenburgs exhortation lacked imminence. The possibility of illegal forms of revenge was remote; the threat of vengeance was conditional, only to occur if something out of the crowds control happened. Brandenburg did not call for any immediate action.
Trumps speech on Jan. 6 was very different from Brandenburgs. At noonwith Congress scheduled to meet in joint session at 1 p.m.Trump exhorted the crowd: And after this, were going to walk down and Ill be there with you. Were going to walk down to the Capitol. The crowd applauded. Later, wrapping up, he reiterated, So we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue and we are going to the Capitol. Trumps words more than satisfy the imminence requirement.
Whether he directed illegal acts presents a trickier question. Trump did not specifically instruct people to storm the Capitol, disrupt the certification of Bidens election, destroy or steal government property, kill law enforcement officers, or terrorize the officials in the building, including his own vice president. Its important to note, however, that incitement can be implicit as well as explicit.
Trump did nothing to stem the violence while he watched it unfold live on television. He never seriously exhorted the crowd to cease anddesist.
Fact-finders sitting in judgment will decide whether Trumps language was implicitly directed at inciting or producing imminent lawlessness. But public actions from that day suggest it was. He stirred people up with baseless claims, rejected by dozens of courts since Election Day, that he had won the election in a landslide. He insisted, We wont have a country if we dont fight like hell, adding that we will not let them silence your voices. Were not going to let that happen. He questioned the steadfastness of Vice President Mike Pence (Im not hearing good stories), whom the insurgents later threatened to hang. Meanwhile, the audience chanted, Fight for Trump, suggesting they got the message.
That context matters. After Trump spoke, many of those who listened to him in person attacked the Capitol. Trumps own behavior that afternoon also proves significant. He did nothing to stem the violence while he watched it unfold live on television. He never seriously exhorted the crowd to cease and desist. When he finally spoke, he undercut his scripted law-and-order message by reiterating that a sacred landslide victory had been viciously stripped away from great patriots. He urged them to Go home with love. Trump reportedly called freshman Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, seeking his help in delaying certification of the Electoral College count. All of this demonstrates that Trump intended the result he got: insurrection. It also points to dereliction of duty to protect the government and the Constitution.
Senators or jurors might also justifiably look backward to Trumps Dec. 19 tweet inviting supporters to gather in Washington on Jan. 6Big protest Be there, will be wildand possibly further back to all of Trumps efforts to delegitimize the 2020 election. None of those earlier tweets and statements count as incitement because any threat they contained was remote, but they provide context for how Trumps listeners understood his Jan. 6 speech. Trump, in turn, presumably knew that people from all over the country planned to bring weapons and disrupt the Capitol because they shared their plans on public social media sites. Those preparations increased the likelihood that Trumps speech would spark lawlessness, though Trump may argue that the insurrection had independent momentum.
Legal observers debate whether courts should look to the average listener or to specific listeners, like the self-selected group that attended Trumps rally, to determine the likelihood that the crowd will take action. But Trumps words amount to incitement under either standard. Lets start with the subjective. We know how a significant portion of those at Trumps rally understood his language, not only from their actions but from their subsequent words. For example, after she was arrested, Jenna Ryan, who flew from Texas to Washington for the Jan. 6 events, justified her conduct by saying: I was following my president. I thought I was following what we were called to do.
The widespread impression that Trumps speech incited the ensuing riot appears to satisfy an objective standard as well. Many who watched Trumps speech from afar feared it would trigger violence, though we lacked the imagination to envision the horror that followed. An audience did not have to be specially primed to hear Trumps speech as a call to action and as permission to, in the words of one reporter, take more extreme measures.
Trumps defenders point to a single sentence of his speech to counter the incitement charge. A master at crafting deniability, Trump put on the record: I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard (emphasis added). He then pivoted to his pervasive imagery of warfare: Our country has been under siege for a long time.
This same maneuver had enabled Trump to escape liability in a civil suit brought by peaceful protesters who had been roughed up at one of his campaign rallies in 2016. Trump convinced an appellate court that his single admonition, Dont hurt em, insulated his five exhortations to get em out of here from any plausible reading as advocating violence.
But if a single sentence in an inflammatory speech could inoculate incitement from liability, every sentient speaker would add the requisite phrase while inciting to their hearts content. Here, the extent of inflammatory rhetoric compared with a passing nod at peaceful behavior indicates Trumps language was directed to incite and was likely to incite. Still, that will be question for senators or jurors to decide.
In the end, the intricacies of incitement doctrine in criminal law may not matter in the Senate. Different rules apply.
Senate rules are conspicuously silent regarding the standard of proof in impeachment trials. When Chief Justice John Roberts presided over Trumps first impeachment trial, he submitted the case to the senators for a vote without specifying any standard, or indeed giving any guidance at all.
Absent guidance, a senator might justifiably conclude a preponderance of the evidence established that Trump incited insurrection, while in criminal proceedings the prosecution would have to show that it had proved each part of the Brandenburg test beyond a reasonable doubt. A conviction in the Senate would not broaden the constitutional definition of incitement. Under the criminal standard, Trumps implicit direction to the crowd on Jan. 6 might fall short of the stringent Brandenburg requirement that the speech be directed to producing imminent lawless action.
That distinction alone could lead to a conviction in the Senate, followed by a decision not to pursue charges or an acquittal in federal court. Neither of those outcomes should be seen as undermining the legitimacy of a Senate conviction.
In a moment of crisis, it may prove tempting to disregard the fundamental premise that free speech is essential to democratic self-governance. The First Amendment recognizes that speakers hope their words will lead to action and not prove impotentbut it never protects violence. Brandenburg allows dissidents of every stripe to organize, motivate, and act. It must continue to protect movements from Black Lives Matter and environmental causes to the Proud Boys, until they cross the line from zealous advocacy to unprotected incitement.
Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.
Link:
What the First Amendment Really Says About Whether Trump Incited the Capitol Riot - Slate
- College sued for stopping students from handing out Constitution [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Federal Judge Strikes Down New Yorks Super PAC Limits [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Argument preview: First Amendment protections for public employees subpoenaed testimony [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 - The U.S. Constitution ... [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- 1st Amendment - Laws [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- HOPE 9 - WikiLeaks, Whistleblowers, and the War on the First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- GBS205 Legal Environment -THE FIRST AMENDMENT - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- University Attacks First Amendment Costs $50,000 Plus - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- California Waste Plant Minions Suppress First Amendment Infowars Special Report - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Supreme Court Preview/Review #2 - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Liking on Facebook Protected Under First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- ConLaw Class 26 - The First Amendment Speech II - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Scalia Ginsburg debate NSA and first amendment - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Political Correctness vs First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- BLM, Fed's Assault More Protesters As 'First Amendment Area' Taken Down - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- Cannibal Cop: First Amendment Violated? - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- ConLaw Class 25 - The First Amendment -- Speech I - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- FIrst Amendment Under Attack - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- The First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2014]
- China toughens environment law to target polluters [Last Updated On: April 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 27th, 2014]
- [USA] First Amendment abused - Video [Last Updated On: April 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 27th, 2014]
- Cliven Bundy and the First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: April 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 27th, 2014]
- First Amendment Tees Co. Inc. FAT-Tee Intro Video of who we are, and what we stand for - Video [Last Updated On: April 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 27th, 2014]
- First Amendment Lawsuit After '8theist' Vanity Plate Denied, 'Baptist' Approved - Video [Last Updated On: April 27th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 27th, 2014]
- How A Public Corruption Scandal Became A Fight Over Free Speech [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 28th, 2014]
- ALEX JONES.11/22/2013..First Amendment Showdown in Dealey Plaza - Video [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 28th, 2014]
- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group - Video [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 28th, 2014]
- MSNBC: Marjorie Dannenfelser Discusses SBA List First Amendment Case - Video [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 28th, 2014]
- United Church of Christ sues over North Carolina ban on same-sex marriage [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 28th, 2014]
- Federal judge: Delayed access to court records raises First Amendment concerns [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 28th, 2014]
- Justices Troubled By Their Earlier Ruling On Public Employee Speech Rights [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 28th, 2014]
- Judge Won't Stop Jason Patric from Using Son's Name for Advocacy Purposes [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 28th, 2014]
- PBL in Journalism I, 2014 - Video [Last Updated On: April 28th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 28th, 2014]
- Opinion: Sterling a victim, too [Last Updated On: April 30th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 30th, 2014]
- Were Sterlings First Amendment Rights Violated? Nope. [Last Updated On: April 30th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 30th, 2014]
- Obama Supporters Petition to Repeal the FIRST AMENDMENT Seriously! Watch!(Mark Dice) - Video [Last Updated On: April 30th, 2014] [Originally Added On: April 30th, 2014]
- Senate Dems vow vote to change Constitution, block campaign funding [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- What happened to Sterling was morally wrong [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Former Supreme Court Justice Wants to Amend the Constitution [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Donald Sterling is my HERO - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Retaining Government Power to Make Economic Policy for Internet Access: Role of the First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- America was just defeated from within TODAY 4/29/2014 - Martial law is next - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- INFOWARS Nightly News: with Lee Ann McAdoo Friday April 11 2014: Alex Jones/Special Report - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency The Kelly File - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Westfield Mayor to pay $53K in campaign sign violation case - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- Similarities Between The Two Clauses In The First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- ConLaw 1 Class 27 - The First Amendment - Free Exercise - Video [Last Updated On: May 1st, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2014]
- PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment [Last Updated On: May 2nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 2nd, 2014]
- First Amendment common sense [Last Updated On: May 2nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 2nd, 2014]
- Bar Owner Prevails in Buck Foston First Amendment Trial [Last Updated On: May 2nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 2nd, 2014]
- Was Donald Sterling's First Amendment Right to Free Speech Violated? - Video [Last Updated On: May 2nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 2nd, 2014]
- California Mayors Stand Behind Anti First Amendment Freedom of Speech Approval - Video [Last Updated On: May 2nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 2nd, 2014]
- John Dukes on First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: May 2nd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 2nd, 2014]
- The First Amendment Doesn't Allow us to Silence Opposition; Get Rid of Limits on Political Speech - Video [Last Updated On: May 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 3rd, 2014]
- Save Us Chuck - First Amendment Zones - Video [Last Updated On: May 3rd, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 3rd, 2014]
- HAROLD PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- In our opinion: Why government can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- In our opinion: Can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- Sen. Ed Markey proposes eliminating free speech - Video [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- Endangered Speeches - Video [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- Alabama Chief Justice Stunning Legal Ignorance - Video [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- Church Uses First Amendment Protections To Perform Same Sex Marriages - Video [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- first amendment test filming Tucson FBI Headquarters. - Video [Last Updated On: May 4th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2014]
- "First Amendment ONLY for Christians," Says Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore - Video [Last Updated On: May 5th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 5th, 2014]
- First Amendment Monument Music Video by Daniel Brouse - Video [Last Updated On: May 6th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 6th, 2014]
- first amendment rights - Video [Last Updated On: May 6th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 6th, 2014]
- News outlets say US drone ban breaches First Amendment [Last Updated On: May 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 7th, 2014]
- Screw the First Amendment | We cant let people pray? - Video [Last Updated On: May 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 7th, 2014]
- Chief Justice: 1st Amendment Only Protects Christians - Video [Last Updated On: May 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 7th, 2014]
- John Paul Stevens: "Money is not speech" - Video [Last Updated On: May 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 7th, 2014]
- ALEX JONES Show Shocking Video: Cop Protects 1st AMENDMENT During TSA Opt Out Campaign - Video [Last Updated On: May 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 7th, 2014]
- Christopher Hitchens vs Tony Blair Debate - Religion A Force For Good In The World - Video [Last Updated On: May 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 7th, 2014]
- Feds Plan To Ban Ammunition - Video [Last Updated On: May 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 7th, 2014]
- WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT - Video [Last Updated On: May 7th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 7th, 2014]
- Letter: First Amendment rights trampled [Last Updated On: May 8th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 8th, 2014]
- A First Amendment attack on Assembly... in George Washington [Last Updated On: May 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 9th, 2014]
- Inside the Classroom with Professor Leslie Kendrick - Video [Last Updated On: May 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 9th, 2014]
- 2014 Civics Video Awards First Amendment - Video [Last Updated On: May 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 9th, 2014]
- .First Amendment protects political speech, not profanity - Video [Last Updated On: May 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 9th, 2014]
- 2010 First Amendment Award: The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) - Video [Last Updated On: May 9th, 2014] [Originally Added On: May 9th, 2014]