> Unless one of those "many people" is Lynn Wood himself, that doesn't count

I completely disagree. The context in which speech is uttered has bearing on whether it is likely to cause immanent [sic] lawless action. If someone else says January 18th, and you provide concrete suggestions and a plan to do so, without mentioning January 18th, you're not magically off the hook.

We were discussing imminence, though, and you switched targets without actually addressing how Lynn Wood's statements meet the imminence prong of the test. You can't refute statements about one prong of the test by hopping on another. You're supposed to meet all prongs of the test.

You're also contradicting Volokh, a well-known and well-respected liberal first amendment lawyer's analysis by vaguely gesturing at one of the cases discussed in that very article.

> We were discussing imminence, though

Yes, but immanence [sic] doesn't mean "right this second". It means at an understood point in the future, not during some undefined and indeterminate timeframe.

If everyone else is talking about violent action January 18th, and then you talk about people you'd like killed in the same general conversation, you don't walk just because you never specified the specific time yourself.

> You're also contradicting Volokh, a well-known and well-respected liberal first amendment lawyer's analysis by vaguely gesturing at one of the cases discussed in that very article.

Argument by authority. We have constitutional lawyers on the other side arguing the bar set in Brandenburg is met by Trump's comments alone. e.g. Niehoff, Somin (who writes on Volokh Conspiracy, too). Let alone after the additional context of a violent outbreak and more outright threats.

> If everyone else is talking about violent action January 18th, and then you talk about people you'd like killed in the same general conversation, you don't walk just because you never specified the specific time yourself.

And where, precisely, is that proposition found to be found in law or precedent?

> We have constitutional lawyers on the other side arguing the bar set in Brandenburg is met by Trump's comments alone

And now you switch subjects again to Trump's comments when we were discussing Lynn's.

You're trying to gesture at an article you haven't even properly cited to blame a different person entirely which does nothing to establish that the authority gestured at even agrees with you in the first place.

Now, if you have, say, a link to a proper legal analysis saying here are these specific statements by Lynn and this is why we think they meet the tests based on these and these precedents, then go ahead and present that. But if you're just going to continue to switch topics instead of trying to make your claims more precise, then I see no reason to engage further.

Here, I'll even help you:

http://userwww.sfsu.edu/dlegates/URBS513/howtodoa.htm

The issue, so that we don't keep changing topics, should be:

Whether Lynn Wood's January 7th statement "Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST." meets the test for imminent lawless action.

> And now you switch subjects again to Trump's comments when we were discussing Lynn's.

"Let alone" circling back is too difficult to understand?

> Whether Lynn Wood's January 7th statement "Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST." meets the test for imminent lawless action.

And you don't think surrounding circumstances matter? E.g. would it be different to say this:

A) When there's an actual firing squad there, and Pence is 200' away? B) When you're at the front of a riled-up crowd, some of whom you know to be armed? C) When there had been violence and people hell-bent on killing Pence the day before, and others you're corresponding with are talking about mounting violent effort against the government in the next week? D) As part of the baseline political discourse when there is no armed crowd and no recent political violence and no conversation about a specific date? E) As part of a middle-school debate, when few tempers are inflamed?

The courts get to decide where "imminent" is, and we don't have a clear standard. This is why legal experts disagree. I think we can probably agree A is not OK and D-E is OK.

If we don't include 'C', it's becomes questionable whether Hitler's speech at the Beer Hall Putsch would be 'incitement', and it seems pretty clear to me that we should include it as such-- if not that, what is? Slightly veiling your coordination and inflammatory language gives you a blank check? I don't think so, and I would hope courts would agree.

I'm not likely to respond to you any further because I do not believe you are discussing in good faith.