While it is perfectly legitimate for the United States to attempt to persuade foreign citizens and media not to engage in advocacy of violent acts, the administration's rhetoric suggests that the United States expects foreign governments to take action against speech that would be protected by the First Amendment in the United States. What explains this apparent hypocrisy? Is this simply another example of the United States touting democracy at home while supporting despotism abroad? Or is the Brandenburg incitement standard so socially and culturally contingent that it is not appropriate for export, at least to the Arab Middle East? My ultimate goal in this Article is to explore whether, as part of the war on terror, the United States ought to support or even demand censorship of incitement abroad that falls short oftrue incitement as defined by Brandenburg. More fundamentally, however, this Article will attempt to demonstrate that Brandenburg both assumes the existence of, and helps constitute, a distinctively American "marketplace of ideas" that makes Brandenburg appropriate here but unfit for export to many other countries.
Brandenburg and the United States' War on Incitement Abroad: Defending a Double StandardUF Law Faculty Publications
Citation InformationLyrissa Barnett Lidsky, Brandenburg and the United States' War on Incitement Abroad: Defending a Double Standard, 37 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1009 (2002), available at http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/145