1.

Here the issue is how Anti-Tax can avoid being held liable for his comments during the
TV program under the Sedition statute.

In the Brandenburg v. Ohio case, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment precludes
the conviction of individuals who incite or advocate breaking the law unless there is advocacy of
illegal conduct and not just an abstract expression of ideas, the advocacy calls for imminent
lawbreaking, and the lawbreaking is likely to occur. Also, a person can not be convicted on the
basis of a statute that does not distinguish between abstract expression of ideas and such
advocacy. Here, Anti-Tax made two statements. He called for nonpayment of the tax increase
and he urged viewers to make Tax pay up. This could be understood as a call to violence to
force Tax to pay up. Anti-tax is calling for individuals to break the law by avoiding paying for
taxes. But, since Anti-Tax is calling for taxes not to be paid at a later time, it does not sufficiently
fulfill the requirement for the illegal action to be imminent. Also the law was never passed and
therefore, it will be hard to argue the likeness of the illegal activity will occur. Anti Tax can argue
that most people will end up paying their taxes, so as not to be criminally charged and avoid
paying penalties. Also Anti-Taxes comments of violence on Tax are also not immediate. The
arson fire occurred two days later, and once again, the state will find it difficult to prove the
arson fire was a direct result of Anti Tax’s call to violence.

Therefore, the Anti Tax cant be held liable under the Sedition Act.

2. Here the issue is how Anti Tax can avoid being held liable for under the Abusive Words
Statute.

Under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court excluded from the protection of the
First Amendment so-called “fighting words.” Fighting words are unprotected speech because
they play little or no part in the exposition of ideas. Speech under this doctrine are words that
are likely to create a violent reaction from other individuals. Therefore, the state will have to
prove that Anti Tax’s words provoked a violent reaction from others, to be considered fighting
words. But, the Abusive words statute here states that “directing any abusive word or term at
another,” will be a violation. This is an overly broad scope that is invalid under the fighting words
doctrine. Anti tax will argue that his words were mean and abusive but not fighting words
specifically. Therefore, Anti-Tax may not be convicted under the Abusive Words Statute
because the statute is overbroad and unconstitutional.