I thought that the First Amendment was about not allowing government to restrict speech and doesn't cover private issues such as between individuals or between an employer and an employee?
With the mob boss example, wouldn't the charge be something like conspiracy to commit murder rather than prosecuting the instruction itself? i.e. saying the words is not in itself illegal, but the intention to conspire to get the person to commit crime on your behalf is the illegal part and the instruction is evidence.
> I thought that the First Amendment was about not allowing government to restrict speech and doesn't cover private issues such as between individuals or between an employer and an employee?
Absolutely, it is. However, I interpreted the comment I replied to as suggesting the First Amendment is not sufficient free speech protection.
With the mob boss example, wouldn't the charge be something like conspiracy to commit murder rather than prosecuting the instruction itself? i.e. saying the words is not in itself illegal, but the intention to conspire to get the person to commit crime on your behalf is the illegal part and the instruction is evidence.