There may be a serious problem with understanding the legal definition of “incitement”:

Fox News contributor Father Jonathan Morris on Sunday called for officials in Oklahoma City to shut down a Satanic black mass because he said worshippers were “inciting violence” by mocking Christians.

***

[I]n a segment titled “The Fight For Faith” on Sunday, Morris explained to the hosts of Fox & Friends that he felt “bad” for anyone who participated in the event.

“You get yourself into something that is, first of all, satanic, that is supernatural,” he said. “They believe that as soon as you connect yourself with evil, evil stuff happens. I feel very bad for them.”

Morris acknowledged that Satanists had a “political right” to worship, but he said that the city also had a “responsibility to defend the good governance of its people.”

“Anybody who walks into a crowded theater and yells ‘Fire!'” he continued. “Do they have a right to do it? Yes. Free speech? No! Why? Because you’re inciting violence.”

“When you have a group that does this, not just because they want to do their own little worship, but they are provoking anger and hatred among the community, the city can step in and say, ‘That’s not worship, that’s not free speech, that’s mockery, and you’re inciting violence!'”

The host of the show tried to point out the Satanists’ First Amendment rights, but Father Morris was having none of that:

“But what if I want to go and desecrate a Koran out in front of my church?” Father Morris asked. “What if I want to speak pro-Nazi stuff right in front of my church and get people all fired up on a public sidewalk? I think at some point government has to step in the name of free speech.”

Father Morris is basically arguing that one of the Supreme Court’s free-speech exceptions should apply here—specifically, the “incitement” exception.

The problem, unsurprisingly, is that he doesn’t appear to have a clue what he’s talking about. In fact, I’d argue that it sounds less like he’s concerned about incitement to violence than he is, at worst, threatening violence, or, at best, indicating that he is unable (or unwilling) to mitigate any violence that might occur.

The Supreme Court defined the “incitement” exception in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. In a per curiam opinion, the court struck down a state law that criminalized mere advocacy of violence. This, the court held, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It identified the type of speech that is not protected as “incitement to imminent lawless action.” This refers to speech intended to incite people to immediate violence or other illegal activity.

The Brandenburg case involved a Ku Klux Klan rally, and concerns that the defendant would incite people to violence against the various people that the KKK doesn’t like. In other words, the issue was whether a KKK member was inciting other KKK members, and those sympathetic to KKK ideas.

I don’t know what will happen at this Satanic shindig, and to be honest, I don’t care. The group seems to have satisfied whatever concerns local officials might have had. If it does incite any sort of “imminent lawless action,” it’s likely only to be “lawless” from the perspective of Catholic law, which just ain’t the state’s problem. Unlike the situation in Brandenburg, Father Morris appears to be concerned that the mere occurrence of a Satanic event will incite people who are not Satanists—specifically Christians—to violence. That is not any kind of intuitive leap. Father Morris says flat-out that “they are provoking anger and hatred among the community.”

It’s not that the Satanists will be advocating imminent violence, although I’m sure Father Morris would like to leave that possibility open as well. It’s that he thinks the Satanists’ right to First Amendment freedoms should be curtailed for their own protection from angry Christians.

Should I point out that this same argument comes up in other parts of the world, and the U.S. generally condemns it?

Here’s my question for Father Morris: if you truly believe that Christians are going to be driven to violent anger by the mere presence of a Satanic something-or-other, what are you going to do about it? By that, I mean that you are ostensibly a leader in your faith (I assume the title “Father” has at least some authority behind it), but you don’t seem too concerned with cooling things down. You acknowledge that the Satanists have a “political right” (your words) to hold their event, but you seem to be taking it as a given that violence will occur.

If you are not okay with violence, Father, then say so, and use whatever leadership capital your collar gives you to at least try to calm things down. If you don’t…..well, I don’t if you’re unable to do anything about the violence you think is inevitable, or if you’re just unwilling. I’m not sure it matters which it is.