/4 (4) it’s on FACEBOOK for Christ’s sake. If the readers tried to do anything they’d break a hip. In short, it is absolutely typical, standard, unremarkable political rhetoric unequivocally protected by the First Amendment. Your feeling that it might not be is just wrong and you are wrong.
January 19, 2026 at 6:05 PM
/4 (4) it’s on FACEBOOK for Christ’s sake. If the readers tried to do anything they’d break a hip. In short, it is absolutely typical, standard, unremarkable political rhetoric unequivocally protected by the First Amendment. Your feeling that it might not be is just wrong and you are wrong.
/3 Factors to consider in evaluating that: (1) it doesn’t call for any action, (2) it’s online, which is much less likely to be able to cause imminent lawless action, (3) it’s couched as criticism of a public official in political terms, making it unlikely to be seen as a call to violent action,
January 19, 2026 at 6:03 PM
/3 Factors to consider in evaluating that: (1) it doesn’t call for any action, (2) it’s online, which is much less likely to be able to cause imminent lawless action, (3) it’s couched as criticism of a public official in political terms, making it unlikely to be seen as a call to violent action,
/2 First, it’s absolutely, unequivocally, definitively not actionable incitement outside the First Amendment. Not even Ilan Wurman would say so. To be outside First Amendment protection as incitement speech must be intended and likely to cause imminent lawless action. This speech is far from that.
January 19, 2026 at 6:02 PM
/2 First, it’s absolutely, unequivocally, definitively not actionable incitement outside the First Amendment. Not even Ilan Wurman would say so. To be outside First Amendment protection as incitement speech must be intended and likely to cause imminent lawless action. This speech is far from that.