Well actually that's a correct reading of Brandenburg v. Ohio. But La Times misinterprets what it means
However, the "clear and present danger" criterion of the Schenck decision was replaced in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio,[27] and the test refined to determining whether the speech would provoke an "imminent lawless action".It's the test J S MILL used in On Liberty (1857)...
For two decades after the Dennis decision, free speech issues related to advocacy of violence were decided using balancing tests such as the one initially articulated in Dennis.[30] In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio which held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action".[31][32] Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence.[33](wiki)
An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.
If there's no excited mob already assembled, and you don[t assemble one, it's free speech, and the recipients are obliged to behave like gentlemen.
LA Times doesn’t meet it either
I'm not going to argue against the premise related above. What I am willing to do is argue against it's relevance on this matter. There is no relevance.
We now know that there was no significant protest outside the Libyan safe house. We also know that armed men showed up on a mission to destroy people and property. The types of weapons they had, make it clear this was no spontaneous occurrence. It was premeditated, and intended to commemorate the anniversary of the events of 09/11/01.
Can it be proven that the creator of the video was trying to foster a commemoration of the events of 09/11/01? If so, there are other videos out there that are better produced, and more credibly critical of Islam. Are they guilty of the above infraction also?
I believe these people had something to say, and they got their message out using a video format. I don't equate these activities with someone loading a gun and pointing it at an innocent party.
Look, I'm making these comments as an academic exercise, but I'm not reacting to your comments per se. I appreciate your comments and don't necessarily have a problem with them.