When is speech punishable by law?

When it comes to punishing speech that advocates violent overthrow of the government or interference with its military it becomes a huge debate because the whole concept of punishing speech seems to be in violation of the first amendment. According to the first amendment of the United States Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." However, it is also the government's job to protect its people and to secure their rights to life liberty, and thepursuit of happiness. When someone is actively speaking about violence or harm that they have every intention in actually pursuing and those words lead to violent and harmful action, then their words should be punishable by law. It is a complicated situation because where exactly do we draw the line when it comes to speaking freely about our discontent with something? Sometimes people say things out of anger, sometimes people say things they really don't mean, and sometimes people say things that they have no intention on actually pursuing.

According to the Brandenburg case, "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 Merriam-Webster dictionary defines incite/incitement as: : to move to action, stir up , spur on, or to urge on.

I believe that in the case of Dennis vs. US where incitement is not needed to prosecute someone for speaking about the destruction of government by violent force it may go a little bit too far into the realm of violating one's right to free speech. In this case, someone could potentially be saying something out of anger but have no intentions on moving people to action to actually cause violent destruction to a government. However, when incitement is occurring, and speech is being made to move people to cause actual harm (like in the case of Brandenburg), then the government has every right to protect it's people and prosecute the person for prescribing such imminent, lawless action.

When looking at the case of Ali Al-Timimi, it appears as though he was seemingly conspiring against the United States government by aiding the Taliban in an attack on the US military camps in Afghanistan, thus threatening the rights of United States Citizens. Therefore, i believe that Ali Al-Timimi deserved to be arrested and prosecuted by the United States Government.

On September 11, 2001 Terrorists attacked the United States by hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings, causing the loss of life for thousands of people. Two days later on September 13, 2001 president bush won NATO support for a possible strike against Usama bin Laden and his supporters in Afghanistan. The terrorist attacks on 9-11 initiated a war, although the war did not "officially" start until later. There was obvious shock among the United States, and rightfully there were precautions that the government was taking in order to prevent more attacks from happening.

Less than a week after the terrorist attacks occurred, Ali Al-Timimi spoke at the house Yong Kwon. Al-Timimi, "told his listeners that American troops likely to arrive in Afghanistan would be legitimate targets of the violent jihad in which his listeners had a duty to engage." According to evidence, that same day, "the individuals gathered at Kwon’s house discussed obtaining military-style training from Lashkar-e-Taiba in order to join the mujahideen expected to engage in violent jihad against American troops in Afghanistan."

There is definitely incitement on the part of Ali Al-Timimi because he spoke to members of the Taliban in order to aid them in attacking the United States. I believe that there was true clear and present danger in this case and this clear and present danger showed risk that harmful action may actually happen (and it did happen). The government's substantial reason for punishing the speech is the simple fact that an attack on the US by the men who Al-Timimi had talked to did occur after Al-Timimi's inciting speech. Under Brandenburg he could (and should) be prosecuted for the act of inciting and aiding in the imminent lawless action against the United States.

John Stuart Mill claims under the his idea of "Harm Principle"- "it is only when speech causes a direct and clear violation of rights that it can be limited." As i said earlier on... we as citizens of the United States have the right to free speech, however, it is our government's job to protect each and every one of us and our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When those rights are being threatened it is up to them to put a stop to it.