J.B. Shurk – It is a reflection of these volatile times that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio echoes in the back of my mind whenever I sit down to write. In that case, the Court defended inflammatory speech from government punishment unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
How the government defines “lawless action,” though, is quickly changing. Just being a concerned parent opposed to a school board’s sexualized curriculum can make an otherwise law-abiding American a potential “domestic terrorist” in the eyes of the FBI. Continue reading