Conspiracy to incite riot vs free speech

[COLGATE4]

80. All protestations to the contrary, you are not really

asking for a point of view. Instead you want to debate legal concepts with which you unfortunately have little or no familiarity. You are now trying to advance a specious argument that, professional opinion to the contrary your point of view should still prevail because of some amorphous moral high ground.

"As we all know, highly trained legal minds are capable of seeing the "right" in some even where people with common sense and a sense of decency see only "wrong".

Unfortunately, and as you've already been told in multiple responses the law doesn't work that way. You don't have the training or background to understand how these quotes (and lots of others which you haven't stumbled upon) work in the context of Constitutional interpretation and existing case law and DU is hardly the place to start your education. People who are actually conversant with the subject are probably not interested in continuing what is rapidly becoming a pointless conversation.

Please go and re-read Cthulu2016's reply to you on the subject:

"You have no idea what expressive speech is, and repeating your error
will not magically make it right the 100th time you say it.

This isn't a debate, it is information. You have been given the information and chose to discard it.

You have that right.

But any prosecutor following your lead should be disbarred, since it would be a grotesque misuse of, and willful misinterpretation of, the statute".

Says it all.