> Violent rhetoric that doesn’t rise to the level of a true threat is a part of political expression. In the risk-benefit analysis, let's be sure we consider a

> Violent rhetoric that doesn’t rise to the level of a true threat is a part of political expression. In the risk-benefit analysis, let's be sure we consider another factor: Unknown, unpredictable, armed, nut-job third parties who are triggered to act — sometimes in concert — when dog-whistle rhetoric goes viral. Depending on the circumstances, a prudent analysis might limit 1A protection for certain types of rhetoric because of its unacceptable risk to others. That might be the case even for facially non-violent speech, e.g., so-called dog whistles. It's been said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact [0] — neither is it a license to kill. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suic...