>


I understand the frustration that a lot of people have with the requirement that only incitement of imminent lawless action can be prosecuted. This makes it so that someone can say things that are likely to lead to violence as long as it would only occur at an indefinite point in the future.

It's a bad rule... until you contemplate the alternative.
The system we have right now in USA is fine where everything is free game except immediate directed calls to illicit activities such as violence or disorder.
Agreeable speech does not need any protections, only disagreeable speech needs it and no one should trust a government to determine what non-violent speech is acceptable.
Let the marketplace of ideas and social pressure determine what becomes mainstream or not. Force of law shouldn't be used to shut down mere ideas.