I’m open to hearing the moral case for allowing people residing in America to chant this and mean it. It’s not just about policing the specific words but rather the spirit and the desire to spread this spirit to others.

Viva la résistance

Why would it be wrong for the USA, even considering its history, to say, “You can criticize anything about this country, but we’re not doing revolution anymore and trying to spread that spirit is illegal”?

I'm not really sure what the argument is. Flag burning has been legal since 1989.

Let me rephrase. From a moral standpoint, why is protecting this revolutionary speech better than not protecting it. I’m truly open to hearing the case.

Probably the same basic reason it's not illegal to say "i want to rob a bank" or "i hope Trump dies" or "Hitler was right" or to be a Marxist etc.

If you start rounding up people for "spreading a spirit," you open a pandoras box.

Monitoring radical groups and only arresting them once they actually do stuff seems to work OK.

It's because we live in an immoral system.

I wouldn’t be in favor of dropping the hammer on offenders. Something more like a warning and then a small fine for people overtly chanting it in public spaces.

The mindset of a morally secure country should be that tearing the country down is never part of a good solution. Deconstruction must be contained within the individual psyche. Projecting it outward isn’t good for the country or the individual.

OP, what does your imaginary friend think of all this, and of you being out of your room past 10?

Call me Craig. What’s your name?

Heisenberg. Say it.

Death to America could mean you think God will punish America, rather than favoring revolution.

It could also just be a teen being angsty and edgy with no real meaning in mind.

It could be a joke or a troll.

Many religious fundamentalists could be seen as revolutionary as they favor theocracy.

Any group percieved as white, black, brown etc nationalists could be construed as revolutionary.

Marx thought workers would and should have a revolution. Any Marxist could be deemed revolutionary.

You could deem someone a revolutionary for quoting Thomas Jefferson.

Anarchists, anarcho capitalists...

So you're going to wind up with whoever is in charge fining and harrassing the people they dislike. It's better to just go after people who actually do bad stuff.

Find me ten righteous men.

People have no clue how to live, for all our burdens. We never have known. All labor and are heavy-laden. Believe it!

https://www.google.com/search?q=heav...obile&ie=UTF-8

The moral case is the broad 1st amendment principle of risking a lot if you give power to censor/punish simple speech to the government even in clear cut cases, because it will be used in not so clear cases.

Which is why it should be judges to determine when the 1a very broad protections are actually being abused.

So arrest them for conspiracy to kill Americans and see what judges think of it.

But then if they are set free you don't arrest others doing the same anymore.

I fear the legal answer exists already and the Brandenburg exception doesn't apply to "only" chanting death to America because that doesn't provoke immediate violence, nor people go out and kill Americans after they hear it (yet?).

But we can and should monitor those groups and at the slightest illegal infraction throw the book at them, destroy their lives, and use lethal force when legally possible to the maximum extent when trying to capture them with a warrant and so on.

So wait, file, monitor, and strike when legal with maximum force.

Because you can't define that "spirit" precisely enough to avoid that power of censorship being used against you when the worst people on society hold office.

When giving a power to the state think like this: would I sleep soundly if the worst people in society had that power? Because you are always one election away from that being the case.

Craig,

You agree that the system is immoral right?

I’d be fine strictly defining it as chanting “death to America” in public and leaving it there. It’s better than the status quo.

Of course, but flipping over the gameboard is undeniably not a good solution.

Then they start chanting death to the great satan and you have to amend the law/constitution again.

Then they start chanting death to the government and so on.

Compared to some idealized system which might very well be impossible to have in practice sure.

Compared to actual systems that exist, and existed in the past, is among the most moral ever existed.

At the end unless the system exactly reflects all your morals precisely, you will consider it at least somewhat immoral.

And given people differ a lot about what is moral for them, most people will find any system deeply immoral and it's impossible for that not to be the case.

I don’t see these three as equal. You can chant death to the government. You can’t chant death to America.

It comes down to the idea of a social contract between American citizens. You have an obligation to not desire the downfall of your fellow citizen. This can’t be legislated but at least we can have a dialogue about it as the reason for banning “death to America”.

Keep in mind that if a process exists to ban ideas without associated action, which you would need to use to ban the specific "death to America" expression in public by itself, then that process... Will be used against ideas you deem decent sooner or later.

Because you can't love America and hate freedom of speech. You can hate the speech which the 1A permits, but you can't love America and hate the 1A. It's the first one, ffs.

I’m not a tyrant but I’m not a moral relativist either. I’m already all-in playing the morality game. It’s life and death for me, meaning I’m willing to suffer and die on behalf of the moral high ground.