Political speech is protected, but incitements of violence are not protected forms of speech.

[Writer]

Even incitements of violence to public officials. I wish that the AG would issue a strongly-worded statement to that effect, making clear that such expressions will be investigated by the FBI.

[jefferson_dem]

1. It's a very fine line.

I'm pretty much a free speech absolutist but know when the line is crossed. We're just about there.

[amandabeech]

3. I think that it will be very, very difficult to curtail because this speech

is political in nature despite its complete and utter vileness.

Political speech is the most seriously protected, if I recall those long-ago con law courses correctly.

We're going to have to live with it, I suspect.

The worse problem, though, IMO, is that good people will be less likely to seek public office, and maybe that's the point.

[Bluerthanblue]

2. I agree- I wish leadership across the nation would do the same-

:hi:

It is something that we all should have no trouble agreeing upon.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. The FBI is way ahead of you.

They've been on top of this stuff since it started.

[Cha]

7. Good..they know who's actually

the victim and who's inciting even as the mediawhores are trying to turn this fucker around.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Brandenburg v. Ohio.

The government can't punish speech unless that speech is both meant and likely to incite imminent unlawful acts. So the teabaggers are walking pretty close to the edge, but they'd have to say things that would likely incite imminent violence. On that basis Glenn Beck's deranged rantings are probably protected speech. But if a speaker at a teabagger rally started urging the assembled goons to go out right now and burn down Congressman X's house, that would not be protected speech.

[annabanana]

6. We should watch that armed rally on Apr. 19th very very closely. .n/t