Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Speech itself isn't protected if it is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action. See Brandenburg v. Ohio

Correct, but for that argument to hold within the context of this case (EDIT: warrant) we would need the government to show that most people who visited this site did so with the intent to incite imminent lawless action. (Note, too, that Brandenburg v. Ohio specifically struck down a law banning the mere advocacy of violence.)

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

   > Correct, but for that argument to hold within the 
   > context of this case we would need the government to 
   > show that most people who visited this site did so with 
   > the intent to incite imminent lawless action.

Of course that's not true. For the government to prosecute all of those visitors requires additional proof, to be sure. However, for the government to gather evidence on a subset of those visitors who have already been arrested and are being charged with politically inspired violence, is perfectly appropriate.

> for the government to gather evidence on a subset of those visitors who have already been arrested and are being charged with politically inspired violence, is perfectly appropriate

If this warrant were replaced with demands for visitation logs from specific IP addresses or relating to certain people, it would be far less controversial.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com