> which is also a thing which exists in USA law. That's exactly it, this is clearly not incitement according to US law. Here are the two important concepts: h

> which is also a thing which exists in USA law. That's exactly it, this is clearly not incitement according to US law. Here are the two important concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action According to the latter, the smell test is: > "Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action" The pug case in no way comes close to either of those clauses. I'd argue, from a legal standpoint, this is absolutely simply teaching his dog to salute. It's crass, rude, and offensive but also perfectly legal under any meaningful definition of free speech.