Terrorizing advocacy and the first amendment: Free expression and the fallacy of mutual exclusivity

Martin H Redish, Matthew Fisher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

Traditional free speech doctrine is inadequate to account for modern terrorist speech. Unprotected threats and substantially protected lawful advocacy are not mutually exclusive. This Article proposes recognizing a new hybrid category of speech called "terrorizing advocacy. " This is a type of traditionally protected public advocacy of unlawful conduct that simultaneously exhibits the unprotected pathologies of a true threat. This Article explains why this new category confounds existing First Amendment doctrine and details a proposed model for how the doctrine should be reshaped.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)565-590
Number of pages26
JournalFordham Law Review
Volume86
Issue number2
StatePublished - Nov 1 2017

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Terrorizing advocacy and the first amendment: Free expression and the fallacy of mutual exclusivity'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this