This is a conflict of individual rights versus state protection. For some, the individual rights come first even if it is an attack on others or could put the country at risk. For others, the protection of the country is more important and therefore a person who speaks in a way that threatens the country should and can be silenced.
Schenck v. US is a famous case where the court ruled if the speech presents a danger to the country then the 1st Amendment right is not applicable and can be denied.
Tinker v. Des Moines School District demonstrated when a person peacefully protest even in a school against the government and their decisions (Vietnam War in this case), then the 1st Amendment is applied and the individual rights upheld.
When trying a minor we need to think about all different aspects of the childs developmental habits.
Does the child have a learning disability?
Are they at an age that is not fully developed so they may not have realized what they were doing?
The future is the children and the younger generations, so how can we expect to lock them away for their entire lives and in doing so possible cost the world one of the advencements this child may have made?
There should be some form of a contingency plan on the lifetimes sentence, especially for children under the age of 13.
Good Luck! I hope some of these help!
Aristotle Onassis is the correct answer.
Knossos, Assur, Sumer, west through the Libyan desert.
