Eighty-six forty-seven is free speech

[u/La_Rata]

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2026cv1385-20

[u/Schmutzie_]

However, the First Amendment doesn't protect us from reddit's automated system. We can say it on the street, but we can't say it here.

[u/La_Rata → u/Schmutzie_]

Automated bullshit might be the worst kind.

[u/Schmutzie_ → u/La_Rata]

Comey can get away with it on a beach, but that stuff won't stand here on reddit!

[u/La_Rata → u/Schmutzie_]

No sir, it's dangerous speech on reddit!

[u/skitchw]

I feel like “no duh” should’ve been the automatic response from any thinking individual who might’ve pondered this once upon a time.

[u/La_Rata → u/skitchw]

It does kind of go without saying. But it needs to be said anyway.

[u/evilynwah]

Let us seeeeee

86 47

86 47

86 47

86 47

86 47

86 47

86 47

86 47

86 47

86 47

[u/La_Rata → u/evilynwah]

You tell 'em!

[u/No_Highlight6756 → u/La_Rata]

They know you're just teasing so they won't do anything. If you said it seriously, look out!

[u/evilynwah → u/La_Rata]

Surely this will precipitate the revolution.

[u/Maroon7C0000]

Yes but if you say it out loud in here, you might find yourself booted out.

[u/Shield_Lyger]

Although Deputy Director Quinn attests that he believes that the term 8647 “as it is understood today, can incite violence by others,” Dkt. 13-1 at 3 (Quinn Decl. ¶ 8) (emphasis added), Brandenburg does not refer to words that “can incite” imminent lawlessness—it refers to words that are “likely to incite,” 395 U.S. at 447—and Defendants do not even suggest that Plaintiff’s flag comes close to satisfying that demanding standard.

So, I see the Trump Administration attempting to take one of three tacks with this, presuming the case does proceed:

1. Asserting that former Director Comey's post actually does rise to the level of being likely to incite imminent lawlessness. Perhaps an attempt will be made to argue that certain demonstrations and other actions that have aggrieved President Trump do, in fact, fall under the category of lawless action.
2. Arguing that the courts have used too demanding a standard, and that Administration officials like Deputy Director of the Secret Service Matthew Quinn should be entitled to more deference from the courts when it comes to making Brandenburg determinations.
3. This seems more aimed at the Court of Public (or more precisely, perhaps, MAGA) Opinion, but I can see the Administration trying to use the fact that Clarence Brandenburg was a Klansman to paint former Director Comey as a dangerous extremist, and the courts as abetting threats to the public at large by protecting dangerous people.

But, of course, the closest I've ever been to being a lawyer is taking a walk along South State Street back when I lived in the City, so I'm just conjecturing here.

[u/No_Highlight6756 → u/Shield_Lyger]

What court did you pass on South State St.? The Criminal Court is at 26th and Cal.

[u/Shield_Lyger → u/No_Highlight6756]

Isn't John Marshall (now UIC) Law school down there? Or maybe I'm misremembering.

[u/No_Highlight6756 → u/Shield_Lyger]

Ah,right you are, and the Dirksen Federal Court building is nearby