 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:12:26 |
In a break from our current news cycle, Advisory Opinions tackles “the more mundane issue of teenage girls complaining” in a discussion about Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L, one of the Supreme Court’s latest cert grants addressing the issue of off-campus student speech. Not to worry, our hosts also dig into the more pressing issues of the day. In an examination of the term “incitement,” David and Sarah ask: Were the president or other individuals guilty—in a criminal sense—of provoking tangible violence at the Capitol last week? Do their words and actions meet the Brandenburg test, which criminalizes inflammatory speech that is both “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and “likely to incite or produce such action”?
Show Notes:
-Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L
-Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra
-David’s French Press newsletter on Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L
-1974 memo on presidential or legislative pardon of the president
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
| 36 | 51 |
Would you guys ever consider posting a transcript of these? I believe there are programs that will do the transcription. I simply do not have the time to listen to an hour-plus podcast, no matter how much I’m interested in the subject. But I could read the relevant portions of a transcript in 5-10 minutes, which would be great.
Not even remotely the most relevant part of today's episode, but I believe the Everclear-Koolaid party drink mixture Sarah was thinking of is called "jungle juice." Now I want to know what kind of parties Sarah was attending when she was in high school and Northwestern!