Breitbart on LA talk radio (KFI) NOW accusing Congressional Black Caucus of lying

[Nikki Stone1]

It's 7:10pm PT and Tim Conway Jr. is interviewing Andrew Breitbart, who is claiming that the Congressional Black Caucus was deliberately sent to walk through a bunch of teabaggers to incite an n-word reaction. Breitbart also says that no one used the N-word. He is also repeating the debunked ACORN story as if O'Keefe had never been busted.

I am trying to get through on the local phone lines. If anyone outside of LA wants to try, the phone number is 1-800-520-1KFI.

[Nikki Stone1]

1. Please call if you can,

both stories need to be debunked.

[msongs]

2. it's KKKfi around here nt

[Webster Green]

3. He should be locked up for the various conspiracies he's invoved with.

Brought down Acorn with his fucking brainwashed drones and their hoax videos, and more recently tried to bug telephones at democratic offices.

Why is he a free man?

We need to start making arrests. Palin should be locked up for putting crosshair targets on dems. Repuke legislators who have actively encouraged the threats and violence, and have even made veiled threats to their fellow legislators should be behind bars already.

This stuff goes beyond acceptable free speech. This is bullshit! :mad:

[paulsby]

4. not for those of us who respect the constitution

the issue isn't what's "acceptable". it's what's LEGAL

and the brandenburg standard protects us ALL

not just wingnut morans

[Webster Green]

5. Surely this crosses the line.

I've been in jails where lots of folks were locked up for "making terrorist threats" or some such thing because they threatened a girlfiend or someone in a fit of anger.

We have a congressman saying that another of his colleagues can't go back to his district because he'll be killed. That's over the line. Gotta be illegal.

[paulsby]

7. no, it's not

i've testified in several "threats" type cases, including a witness intimidation case where after four interrogations, i got a confession, and the guy ended up getting several years.

under the law, a threat must meet the "true threat" standard.

and as for "incitement:" the current state of the law is the brandenburg standard.

i've arrested NUMEROUS people for domestic violence type threats and if you can't see the difference, then i say - CITE a specific example of one of these cases that you think is illegal and we can discuss it.

i also suggest you read the wikipedia entry (as a start) on the brandenburg standard, or even better - the case itself.

for example, mere advocacy of violence is NOT criminal. it wasn't for leftist agitators in the 60's and it aint illegal now for wingnut morans

[Webster Green]

8. I'll check it out.

Thanks for the info. :hi:

[paulsby]

9. np appeciate it heres a very relevant quote from it

The per curiam majority opinion overturned the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute, overruled Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), and articulated a new test — the "imminent lawless action" test — for judging so-called seditious speech under the First Amendment:

“ …Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. ”

The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages. Judge Learned Hand was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917), reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation." The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. In Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the Court had adopted a "clear and present danger" test that Whitney v. California had expanded to a bad tendency test: if speech has a "tendency" to cause sedition or lawlessness, it may constitutionally be prohibited. Dennis v. United States, a case dealing with prosecution of alleged Communists under the Smith Act for advocating the overthrow of the government, used the clear and present danger test while still upholding the defendants' convictions for acts that could not possibly have led to a speedy overthrow of the government. Brandenburg did not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test, but it appears that after "Brandenburg" the test is de facto overruled. "Brandenburg" also made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous.

Interestingly, the per curiam opinion cited to Dennis v. United States as though it were good law and amenable to the result reached in Brandenburg. In point of fact, Brandenburg essentially eviscerated Dennis's central holding and held that "mere advocacy" of any doctrine, including one that assumed the necessity of violence or law violation, was per se protected speech. It may be that principles of stare decisis figured in the Court's decision to avoid overruling the relatively recent Dennis, but the distance between the two cases' approach is obvious and irreconcilable.

[fascisthunter]

6. Breitbart appears to have a problem with Black People

remember how "offended" he got for being accused of being a racist. Gee, I wonder why...

[Dream Girl]

10. They will try to vilify the CBC turn them into the next "Acorn"

They are so, so scared of black folks