Ken White

That's what the government does with the power to suppress speech, when you let the government decide what's true.

But you see, Eli, you know that that's not the right case.

That's the one that's best for your argument.

The right case is 12 years... I didn't think that means this.

The right case is 12 years earlier, Yates versus United States.

People convicted for becoming members of the Communist Party under the theory that some ideas can be punished as clear and present danger, even when there is no imminent advocacy of wrongdoing.

Yates built the wall that eventually Brandenburg completed.

Brandenburg's the outlier.

Yates is the one that shows how the power is consistently used by the government.

I think a lot of the comments sent to her were true threats.

That is, a reasonable person would see them as statements of actual intent to do her harm.

I think that some of the speech about her meets the incitement standard, that it's intended to and likely cause imminent lawless action against her.

But ideas, however hateful, can't be true or false.

and it's not for the government to regulate whether ideas or opinions are true or false, no matter how despicable they are.

I want them to stop, too.

But here's the problem.

With the history of America being what it is, with the power having been used in the past being what it is, what possesses you to think that if you give this broader power to attack speech to the government, it's going to be used the way you want it to be?