And yet people don't get how narrow the Brandenburg test is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

And yet people don't get how narrow the Brandenburg test is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test > The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test: > The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” > AND > The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.” [snip] > The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which Gregory Hess, an Indiana University protester, said, “We’ll take the fucking street later (or again)." The Supreme Court ruled that Hess’s profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as the speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court held that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’” > In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.(1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test and found that the speech was protected: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.” And because I also see this doctrine over-applied online: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words > In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." There, the Court held that the burning of a United States flag, which was considered symbolic speech, did not constitute fighting words. > In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination. The page I linked to links to multiple law review articles on the subject: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2423&context=law_lawreview http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=mulr http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art... http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2867&context=law-review http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=28... Suffice it to say: If someone online claims a speech act isn't protected due to the fighting words exemption, no it isn't.