In re Kendall–3rd circuit–Clear and present danger Speech explained

Dear Readers;

One of the issues my trial stated out with was Atty Melissa Smart of the ARDC going on and on about how my blog is like “yelling fire in a crowded theater” which, I believe, is fairly akin to the Nelson 7th circuit case wherein 2 Aldermen in Chicago (Bobby Rush and Dorothy Tillman) entered the Art Institute of Chicago — one brandishing a gun– and claimed that a painting depicting former Mayor Harold Washington in ladies undies and a garter belt “would incite riots” in the street of Chicago, making that speech a “clear and present danger.”

So when and why is speech a “clear and present danger”.  Is there any belief amongst reasonable people out there that this blog in any means or manner could ever incite any sort of violent action, other than perhaps a paper cut? (pixels generally don’t damage anyone or anything, except…

View original post 1,085 more words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s