Speech that incites violence is not protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. A 1969 legal case, Brandenberg vs. Ohio, defines the legal standard by which incitement is judged. It is a two-part test: a government may prohibit speech if it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

According to former Idaho Attorney General and criminal lawyer David Leroy, the first part requires very specific words that charge a particular group with going out and doing specific acts. The second part requires that those acts proceed from and be foreseeable in terms of the words that were used.

In Brandenberg, Mr. Brandenberg was a Ku Klux Klan leader. He called for violence against blacks and Jews. He said, “it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken.” The Supreme Court ruled that this was protected speech. The court found that Clarence Brandenburg’s comments were “mere advocacy” of violence, not “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action . . . likely to incite or produce such action.”

The point is that Mr. Brandenberg’s speech was horrible, nasty, dangerous, and awful. However, we live in a country with a constitution. That constitution allows horrible, nasty, dangerous, and awful speech, and it should. Why? Because this is America, and we want everyone to have a voice. If we start censoring horrible voices, slowly but surely, we will begin to censor more and more and less and less awful. Without awful speech, you cannot have free speech. Could someone now please tell that to Jack Dorsey of Twitter?