CDZ Why Are Cross Burnings Protected Under the First Amendment?

[IM2]

Assault is sometimes defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that she is about to suffer physical harm

Because, historically, the burning of a cross has been a precursor to physical harm, or worse. A reasonable person could agree that the burning of a cross in view of or close proximity to the traditional victims of that harm, i. e. Black Persons, is assault and, therefore, not protected speech.

So if someone burned a cross on my lawn I would be within my rights to shoot them ? If I lived in America obviously.

Those who burned crosses in black peoples lawn were southern white democraps who had their governors and such keep the blacks from owning firearms, so the blacks couldnt defend themselves from the prog KKK. Just like in the inner cities where blacks are prevented from owning weapons to protect themselves so BLM/ANTIFA can come burn their buildings, loot their stuff and even murder those blacks of the inner city. Nothing has changed with Democrats and their terrorizing of black people. But down here in Florida, come burn a cross in my yard, and i will put a couple 12 gauge shot into your belly and then call the police.

Crosses burned in the north and republicans participated in Jim Crow.

 

[IM2]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

 

[IM2]

During last summer the majority of the violence was done by white supremacists. So continuing to talk about BLM/ANTIFA is just a diversion from the topic.

Feedom of expression is suppose to allow such things as cross burinings but where Newsvine has a point is that the same feedom of expression has been limited for blacks. I know that no one black in any type of group, or no non white in general would be allowed to do the same thing.

 

[Dayton3]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

It is hard to take something seriously (cross burnings) that actually originated in a movie more than 100 years ago "Birth of a Nation".

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

This government was not started based on white supremacy you moron, but equality for everyone, except the slaves owned by Democrats, black and white. Oh yeah, there were plenty black slave owners.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

In Virginia v. Black (2003) the Supreme Court held that cross burning may be banned if such an act is “carried out with the intent to intimidate”:

“The First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation. Instead of prohibiting all intimidating messages, Virginia may choose to regulate this subset of intimidating messages in light of cross burning's long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence. A ban on cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate is fully consistent with this Court's holding in R. A. V. Contrary to the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling, R. A. V. did not hold that the First Amendment prohibits all forms of content-based discrimination within a proscribable area of speech. Rather, the Court specifically stated that a particular type of content discrimination does not violate the First Amendment when the basis for it consists.”

Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)

Virginia v. Black: The government may not ban cross burning with the intent to intimidate if the act of cross burning itself is considered evidence of the intent to intimidate.

supreme.justia.com

Consequently, cross burning is not comprehensively entitled to First Amendment protections.

 

[Slade3200]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

I’ll take the other side of the argument and say that it doesn’t have anything to white supremacy. Our constitution and country was founded on freedom from a tyrannical government so it set limited powers for government and protected the rights and freedoms of the people. Our freedom of speech being one of the most important... even if that speech is ugly, hateful or bigoted. When speech crosses the line to endanger the public then it becomes unlawful. But the freedom of speech also gives us the freedom to offend and insult and say/do nasty stuff.... and to also fight against that stuff as well.

But this government was started based on white supremacy.

Yes there were definitely elements of white supremacy involved in those times. I just don’t think the first amendment and principles of freedom of speech had anything to do with WS. As time went by and we saw how slavery and then Jim crow developed, we could see how speech could be used to oppress minorities then yes it became justified to regulate speech through law. There is a line though that defines what is lawful expression and unlawful.

 

[ESay]

I was thinking more in terms of the "stand your ground" laws that you have over there. I would definitely feel threatened by this and would be looking to protect my home and family. Surely this law would protect me if I wanted to shoot a few cross burners

I am not an American and of course I dont know the situation on the ground. From what I read there, much depends on the state where one lives.

I have read about a story which happened several years ago. In this story a Japanese citizen (he was a student or tourist, I dont remember now for sure) entered a lawm of some couple. The Japanese didn't understand English properly and couldn't communicate properly with the husband who came to him with a handgun. The husband wanted him to leave but the student wanted to ask something. At some point the husband decided that the student made a danger move and opened the fire.

The student was shot dead. After a trial, the jury decided to recognize the husband as not guilty. This outcome even caused some critical statements from the Japanese embassy.

I dont know whether the law was made more strict after that. Maybe someone will add something or give more correct information about the story I wrote about.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

You are desperately grasping at straws like a pathetic mental midget.

So you have nothing pertinent to contribute, noted.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

For the same reason the burning of the US Flag is protected.

"Free Speech"

How are they the same to you?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

You have race on the brain and the MSM is controlling you by making you think everyone is racist. Watch out their is a racist hiding out around the corner, waiting for you.

Do you know why cross burnings are protected under the first amendment? Or why anyone would find them objectionable?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

Wrong.......we have a 1st Amendment to protect all speech...because when you allow the government to ban some speech...they eventually ban good speech......

What part is wrong? And at this point we're talking about actions, not speech per se.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Assault is sometimes defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that she is about to suffer physical harm

Because, historically, the burning of a cross has been a precursor to physical harm, or worse. A reasonable person could agree that the burning of a cross in view of or close proximity to the traditional victims of that harm, i. e. Black Persons, is assault and, therefore, not protected speech.

Very eloquently stated and part of what I was looking for, thank you so much.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

A small thing called freedom of expression and freedom of speech - no matter how unpalatable the gesture might be.

The problem is, if it's amended to the point where if it may cause offence to people then it's not allowed (and there's every chance that will happen at some point) then you open the biggest can of worms ever that you'll never get the lid back on.

Because, everything offends someone, somewhere.

For example I stayed at my Aunt and Uncles last night - this morning my Aunt & Uncle were watching a documentary on George Michael. Was OK with it until it got to the bit about him committing gay sex acts in public toilets and then it said how instead of finishing his career it made him bigger and more popular. Then he was on talk shows laughing about it with audience clapping and them all embracing it.

The reason I'm saying this is because the celebration of it offended me on many levels. The fact it was popularised.

My Auntie found it funny. I was offended.

But I don't want the documentary cancelled and never shown again and the TV station and show makers lobbied and have them all never work again.

That's the difference.

I accept it's something I didn't like and me being offended is no big deal because I'm nothing special.

It's a shame that's not a general way of thinking and others feelings matter more than others on some issues.

Sex between consenting adults irrespective of the circumstances doesn't come close to being comparable to an act done to intimidate and terrorize other human beings, particularly when said acts are sanctioned by society and the government.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists.

Is that what you teach white kids in Sunday school?

I don't teach kids, white or otherwise, in any type of school.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Assault is sometimes defined as any intentional act that causes another person to fear that she is about to suffer physical harm

Because, historically, the burning of a cross has been a precursor to physical harm, or worse. A reasonable person could agree that the burning of a cross in view of or close proximity to the traditional victims of that harm, i. e. Black Persons, is assault and, therefore, not protected speech.

So if someone burned a cross on my lawn I would be within my rights to shoot them ? If I lived in America obviously.

Only in Texas </not really sarc>

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

A small thing called freedom of expression and freedom of speech - no matter how unpalatable the gesture might be.

The problem is, if it's amended to the point where if it may cause offence to people then it's not allowed (and there's every chance that will happen at some point) then you open the biggest can of worms ever that you'll never get the lid back on.

Because, everything offends someone, somewhere.

For example I stayed at my Aunt and Uncles last night - this morning my Aunt & Uncle were watching a documentary on George Michael. Was OK with it until it got to the bit about him committing gay sex acts in public toilets and then it said how instead of finishing his career it made him bigger and more popular. Then he was on talk shows laughing about it with audience clapping and them all embracing it.

The reason I'm saying this is because the celebration of it offended me on many levels. The fact it was popularised.

My Auntie found it funny. I was offended.

But I don't want the documentary cancelled and never shown again and the TV station and show makers lobbied and have them all never work again.

That's the difference.

I accept it's something I didn't like and me being offended is no big deal because I'm nothing special.

It's a shame that's not a general way of thinking and others feelings matter more than others on some issues.

Sex between consenting adults irrespective of the circumstances doesn't come close to being comparable to an act done to intimidate and terrorize other human beings, particularly when said acts are sanctioned by society and the government.

and the world champion for missing the point today is .... *drum roll

YOU

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

1.that's just you -it's your HATE filled, bigoted, racist OPINION only
2. it's a hate crime if you do it on someone else's property
3. blacks commit hate crimes at TWICE the rate of whites
4. again AGAIN--you people concentrate on what's not a real problem instead of the real problems like black murder/crime rates and low grad rates

For at least the 10th time Harmonica, when did you graduate and what fields are your degrees in? I would just about bet that my 20 year old niece has more degrees than you do.

As far as my opinion, at least it's based on an educated interpretation of our constitution, laws and case law. And believe it or not (as I'm sure you won't), I am paid good money for my "professional opinion".

Don't be stupid.

 

[Concerned American]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

You're original premise is flawed. Cross-burning has been prohibited as a "hate crime" for some time now and there is case law that has convicted under those premises in FL.

 

[Weatherman2020]

In my opinion, it is because the people who wrote the laws and the judges who interpret them and the justices who upheld those interpretations were white supremacists. This has always been, in my opinion, an egregious ruling of equal magnitude to the Dred Scott decision in that both of them legalized the abuse and terrorization of black people by deeming this overt act as an exercise of a "protected first amendment right".

In light of the Trump impeachment defense indicating that Trump's speech on January 6th 2021 was protected first amendment political rhetoric, I'm wondering why none of the other specific exclusions to the First Amendment protections can be applied to him, a few examples follow.

The Fighting Words Doctrine:
In 1942, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect “fighting words”—those “likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.”
Question: Must the retaliation be against the speaker or can it be against a party with which they are aggrieved?

Incitement:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

As far the likeliness to produce such action, the proof is in the pudding as far as I can see, since it wasn't just likely that use of force or lawbreaking occurred, it DID actually occur.

I know there are several members here that are knowledgeable about our system of laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, I'm interested in hearing your interpretations.

We will have Trump decide what’s acceptable under the 1st.