The author approvingly references the US Supreme Court ruling that incitement must consist of speech that provokes imminent lawless action. Is that too permissi

The author approvingly references the US Supreme Court ruling that incitement must consist of speech that provokes imminent lawless action. Is that too permissive a system for you? To me it's clear that there are limits to what one should be allowed to say. Especially, people should have the right to stop associating with an individual that is saying or has said dubious things. Those are two very different things. Freedom of association is generally considered to be a _part_ of freedom of expression, not something in tension with it. And why is it clear to you? What line can you draw between legal and illegal speech that can't be misused by the government?