The US once again a laggard. Unfortunate but not surprising given the current tenants of the WH.
Streaming a terrorist attack doesn't seem to result in a "threat of imminent harm" I think - if anything, it could prevent harm (because the viewers could report the violence and police could prevent further violence).
There are legally recognized limits in the US, but that particular example isn't a good one.
(https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...)
> But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.
What laws are you talking about?
US Code, Title 18, §842(p)(2)
(A)
> to teach or demonstrate the making or use of ... or to distribute ... information pertaining to ... the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction
> ... with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence
(B)
> knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence
Note that this very narrowly applies only when intent can be demonstrated, at which point you are arguably an active participant in whatever crime is being committed. In my opinion, that is quite different from your earlier claim.
> The US has plenty of laws against the use of speech to promote violence.
This isn't regulating mere promotion, it's regulating a form of active participation. The Christchurch Call agreement isn't even remotely similar.
Distributing such instructions with the intent to further a crime makes the speech unprotected. But, each element (e.g, knowingly intending to further a crime, and so on) has to be proven in a court of law to strip the speech of its protected status.
From the statute you linked: "...with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence;"
edit: typos
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/700
However, this act was explicitly ruled to be protected political speech under the First Amendment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman
In a similar vein, the law you've linked to would still be subject to the "imminent lawless action" analysis, were someone to be charged under it.
It's fortunate that we've been in one of the longest periods of relative peace in post dark age Western European history, but I don't generally count on that trend continuing forever. Making sure a government has significant enshrined limitations on its own power is important, not in the good times, but in the bad.
Common-sense deviations, a.k.a. an exceptions to the rules are often ill-conceived acts of emotional stupidity that don't age well. If it was so obvious, why wasn't it part of the rule in the first place?