A is meaningless. Juries can be overruled but that provides no reasoning as to why this one should be other than vague handwaves in the direction of historicity

A is meaningless. Juries can be overruled but that provides no reasoning as to why this one should be other than vague handwaves in the direction of historicity that even you feel the need to caveat with the word "arguably". If it's arguable, argue it. B is sort of begging the question. You start by saying the award is too much and your proof is just you saying the award is too much a second time. As far as C goes, yes, eventually. But a more accurate example would be a guy selling marijuana to thousands of people and then telling them over and over again despite multiple court orders to go smoke it in the park. For D, again, we're dealing with direct incitement of illegal behavior. Not "someone should kill that guy" but "you need to go kill that guy right now" and again you're ignoring the context of multiple cease and desist orders that were willfully defied. A court system whose only answer to defiance is politely asking a second time is not a court system.