Explore the vast range of titles available.

Explores the line between free speech protected by the First Amendment and unprotected incitement to imminent lawless action. Free Speech and Incitement in the Twenty-First Century explores the line between free speech and incitement, which is a form of expression not protected by the First Amendment. Incitement occurs when a person intentionally provokes their audience to engage in illegal or violent action that is likely to, or will, occur imminently. This doctrine evolved from World War I through the Cold War and the civil rights movement era, culminating in a test announced by the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Since the 1970s, this doctrine has remained largely unchanged by the Supreme Court and, as such, has received relatively little academic or media attention. Since the late 2010s, however, violence at political rallies, armed protests around Confederate statues, social unrest associated with demonstrations against police, and an attack on the US Capitol have led to new incitement cases in the lower courts and an opportunity to examine how incitement is defined and applied. Authors from different perspectives in Free Speech and Incitement in the Twenty-First Century help the reader understand the difference between free speech and incitement.

Recent surveys have shown that approximately 42% of women have reported that they experience gender discrimination at work.14 The most commonly reported workplace gender discrimination is women being paid less than men for the same work and being treated as not competent to do their work.15 In addition, 57% of women and 42% of men have stated that the United States has not gone far enough to ensure gender equality.16 This data follows a historical pattern. Women spend 67% more time on unpaid work than men do, a fact that men consistently underestimate.20 Indeed, perceptions of gender equality often differ along gender lines; this same study showed that 25% of men surveyed saw no need to take steps to fight gender inequality at all.21 A.Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Prevalence and Laws Studies show that approximately 14.8% of American women have been a survivor of rape or attempted rape in their lifetime, and 3% of men have experienced the same.22 However, at less than 30% reporting rate, sexual assault is the most underreported violent crime in the United States.23 Even when sexually violent crimes are reported, a very small percentage of them result in arrest (4.6%), prosecution (0.9%), felony conviction (0.5%) or incarceration (0.46%).24 Even offenders who do go to jail may get disproportionally low sentences.25 The low rates of prosecutions, convictions, and substantial prison terms for offenders add insult to a legal process that is often traumatic for survivors, despite rape shield laws and other protections that have been put in place.26 Existing laws criminalizing sexual assault have been criticized as being overly restrictive and not focusing enough on the survivor's lack of consent. [...]2013, the FBI's definition of rape, which is used in gathering data on the prevalence of that crime, was limited to \"forcible rape,\" which required the perpetrator's use of force and was also limited to a man committing that crime against a woman.27 However, the FBI now defines rape as sexual penetration without the survivor's consent.28 Similarly, until the 1960s, states defined rape as requiring the use of force and excluded marital rape.29 Today, the Model Penal Code still emphasizes force instead of consent and also contains a marital rape exception.30 The Model Penal Code is currently the subject of intensive reform efforts, most notably by the American Law Institute.31 Even after extensive legal reform, states still have widely varying definitions of rape and sexual battery. \"33 As with sexual violence, workplace sexual harassment is prevalent in the United States, with twenty-two percent of women saying they have been sexually harassed at work.34 The EEOC defines sexual harassment as including \"unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature in the workplace.

Cyber-harassment and Revenge pornography are international problems that can cause psychological, financial and physical harm to their victims. And yet, despite legal efforts in several countries, the law has yet to fully address these issues. Instead, enactment and enforcement of laws is undermined by the gendered nature of these acts, which leads to (typically male) police and prosecutors to treat victims with ambivalence and even scorn. This article shows that, despite the prevalence and dangers involved with cyber-harassment and revenge porn, victims are still often left without redress. This article also analyzes law enforcement's tendency to minimize victims' harm and blame victims for their own suffering. Finally, this article discusses how perceptions may begin to change, which could lead to a better understanding of the full range of behaviors and effects of cyber-harassment and revenge pornography and, consequently, better legal outcomes for victims.

The aftermath of the January 6, 2021, insurrection is still being felt today. On January 6, 2021, 150 police and security officers were injured and at least four were killed.¹ As a result of the FBI’s investigation, at least 919 people have been charged so far, mostly with criminal trespass.² The House of Representatives also reacted swiftly, first by impeaching Donald Trump for incitement,³ and then by creating the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol to further investigate Trump’s ties to the insurrection.⁴ The Committee issued its report on December 22, 2022, which

As part of the proliferation of online communications, there has been a global increase in sexually explicit social media messages and consensual sexting among teenagers and adults of all ages. As a result, these kinds of electronic communications have begun to be used as evidence in a wide variety of court cases, including sexual harassment and discrimination cases. However, courts have only begun to consider whether such communications, particularly sexting communications, should be usable to impeach a sexual assault complainant, or whether these kinds of communications should be protected under rape shield laws as sexual \"conduct\" or \"behavior.\" This article traces the history of rape shield laws in four common law countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, and, using the history and purpose of these laws, argues that sexting should be protected under rape shield laws to protect sexual assault victims from unnecessary questioning about evidence that is likely to be embarrassing, prejudicial, and irrelevant to the case.

The freedom of speech is a fundamental right that is enshrined in the US Constitution, and the US Supreme Court has long recognized its vital importance. This First Amendment freedom is integral to the marketplace of ideas, helping to foster the search for truth through sifting and winnowing in discussion and debate. As put by the US Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), “[u]nder the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on

Now that you more fully understand the US Supreme Court’s progression of cases on advocacy and incitement, and now that you have seen various defenses of, objections to, and proposed modifications to the Brandenburg test, we return to Brandenburg itself and ask about its future. Hopefully, after reading the preceding chapters, you understand that under the current test for incitement, context matters. Recall the Supreme Court’s test under Brandenburg: “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