Paywalled. But what shows onscreen references Brandenberg v. Ohio. That did severely limit what the gov’t can call incitement but it limited it to, as the op ed even references, imminent lawless action and the likelihood of the speech to produce such action. This is why in recent conversations with friends and family who think Trump’s speaking is “all over the map” I am directing them to Seth Abramson’s analysis. The closing words about “cheering” could be brought out as a hopeful get out of jail free card, but the WSJ shouldn’t be offering that up.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
