Whoa
18 U.S. Code § 373 - Solicitation to commit a crime of violence
(a) Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent, the defendant prevented the commission of the crime solicited. A renunciation is not “voluntary and complete” if it is motivated in whole or in part by a decision to postpone the commission of the crime until another time or to substitute another victim or another but similar objective. If the defendant raises the affirmative defense at trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
(c) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the person solicited could not be convicted of the crime because he lacked the state of mind required for its commission, because he was incompetent or irresponsible, or because he is immune from prosecution or is not subject to prosecution.
(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1003(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2138; amended Pub. L. 99–646, § 26, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3597; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(A), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
It was 5-4, but the majority included the venerable Justice Scalia.
How do we reconcile past SCOTUS decisions, and the pretty plain wording of the constitution's first amendment, with Mr Trump's decision? I mean, we as a country have been pretty happy with his decisions in other hotly contested matters. I supposed we can be happy with this one.
This is, of course, absolute bullshit. But there's been a trend for the past several decades of the courts practically limiting speech rights for disfavored groups without technically limiting their speech rights. Nieves v Bartlett is perhaps the clearest example, where arresting somebody to retaliate against their speech (even if everybody agrees that this was the proximate reason for the arrest) is fine as long as there is any other possible justification for the arrest.
(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
cranberryturkey•4mo ago
cranberryturkey•4mo ago