Texas Republicans pass resolution denying Biden won 2020 election

[ancianita]

11. THIS IS CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, ORGANIZED TO THREATEN CIVIL ORDER. NOT SIMPLE PARTISANSHIP.

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right...

Restrictions on free speech are permissible only when the speech at issue is likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.[23] Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Court that "a function of free speech under our system is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

For instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a threat was knowingly made if the speaker comprehended the meaning of the words uttered by him or her. It was willingly made if, in addition to comprehending the words' meaning, the speaker voluntarily and intentionally uttered them as a declaration of apparent determination to carry them into execution.[11] According to the 2018 U.S. Attorney's Manual, "Of the individuals who come to the Secret Service's attention as creating a possible danger to one of their protectees, approximately 75 percent are mentally ill."[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_president_of_the_United_States