human
Ashcroft, 122 S. Ct. at 1403. First Amendment jurisprudence makes clear that speech may not be restricted on the ground that restricting speech will reduce crime or other undesirable behavior that the speech is thought to cause, subject to only a narrow exception for speech that
gpt
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (per curiam).
human
The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is insufficient reason for banning it. Ashcroft, 122 S. Ct. at 1403. Outside of the narrow
gpt
exception, the appropriate method of deterring unlawful or otherwise undesirable behavior is not to suppress the speech that induces such behavior, but to attach sanctions to the behavior itself.
human
Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgement of the rights of free speech. Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of the Univ. of the State of New York, 360 U.S. 684, 689 (1959) (quoting Whitney v. Cal., 274 U.S. 357, 378 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring)); see also Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 529 (2001) (
gpt
The normal method of deterring unlawful conduct is to impose an appropriate punishment on the person who engages in it.