Court orders upstate woman to remove Confederate flag or risk custody of multi racial child

[Jedi Guy]

176. Speech that promotes violence is already proscribed and not protected by the First Amendment.

So, for instance, if some jackwagon stood on a soapbox on the street corner and expounded on the 101 reasons he hates black people, that's protected speech and he's within his rights to do so. Note that others are also within their rights to push back against his speech with their own speech, provided that's as far as it goes. They cannot physically assault him, as recently happened when a Dunkin Donuts employee punched and inadvertently killed an old man who used racial slurs while arguing with him.

Now, if he starts expounding on the reasons people should hurt or kill black people, and his speech falls foul of the Brandenburg test, that's not protected speech. The test there is basically, "Is this speech directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is it likely to incite or produce such action?" There's some gray area there, but it's generally pretty clear, I'd say. In that circumstance, he'd be on the hook for criminal charges.

So you're drawing a line and saying that all "hate speech" promotes violence, which is not necessarily the case. The First Amendment functions just fine as is, and we really don't need to start proscribing speech just because you or someone else doesn't like it, or it hurts their feelings.

Your remark about the insurrectionists has nothing to do with what we're discussing, as I'm not arguing they were in the right. If they'd rallied outside the Capitol and that's it, well... that's their right. Freedom of expression doesn't allow them to run wild in the Capitol complex while assaulting police officers, and neither I nor any reasonable person would assert that it does. I'm really not sure where you pulled that from.