I'm confused, who is saying that a line doesn't need to be drawn? The line already has been drawn, in law. SCOTUS has made the line clear and present danger[1].

I'm confused, who is saying that a line doesn't need to be drawn? The line already has been drawn, in law. SCOTUS has made the line clear and present danger[1]. That is, a threat made via speech has to be clear, credible and imminent else it is not considered a threat and hence not speech that may be interfered with legally, but if it is then it can be. It's distinctly possible you've read more Popper than I have but his words seem very clear here too[2]: > I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion He goes on to contrast that with those who give up on speech and respond with violence (and it's all within about a page). So we have a clear line and there's no need to wait for violence to actually occur before legal remedy can be sought, which would appear to me to fit with Popper's statement and what you studied. I completely agree with Popper on elections, and free speech fits the same mould, it's primary function is to reduce violence. Without free speech the options for those who wish to change society are only violent. With it there is no excuse for violence. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger [2] https://archive.org/details/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPopperKarlSir/page/n837/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPoppe...