Has there been ANY law enforcement reaction, at all, ...

[bigtree]

38. more gaslighting about DOJ

...with a really dumb take on the law regarding speech.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court established that speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment unless the speech is likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”

Advocacy can be punished only “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

In Dennis v. United States (1951), the Court said that the correct interpretation of the clear and present danger doctrine allowed legislatures to decide what was dangerous; the courts in applying the clear and present danger test were simply to determine whether, on balance, the “gravity of the ‘evil,’ discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.” In fact, in Brandenburg, the Court cited Dennis as good law.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/brandenburg-v-ohio/#:~:text=Ohio%20%281969%29%201%20Brandenburg%20was%20convicted%20for%20his,issued%20new%20%E2%80%98imminent%20lawless%20action%E2%80%99%20speech%20test%20

...there's absolutely nothing legally actionable about what Trump said, no matter how abhorrent.