Reply #218: Yes, I know. I have seen them try to defend the 'pastor'

[sabrina 1]

even after he was told by the POTUS, a U.S. General and the AG that what he was about to do was 'dangerous'. I believe they did that publicly to let him know that if he went ahead with that knowledge, it would cost him. I was not at all surprised to see him back down at that point. Because there is speech that is not protected, such as speech that can result in the deaths of other people.

I wish all these absolutists would try a little experiment, although I doubt they'd have the nerve. Call someone up and threaten to kill them and see what happens.

The Abortion case involving incendiary posters which were threatening to abortion doctors, defended at the time by 'absolutists' is an example of speech that was not protected.

It is ludicrous to believe that the FF intended that the 1st Amendment would be used by bigots to arouse dangerous anger against any religious group or by anyone else that would threaten lives.