[i_robot73]

>The Constitution — if upheld — is pretty clear.

Yes...IF.

>...there is no way a court can rule consistent with precedent that words that make the snowflakes uncomfortable or afraid are not protected.

You seem to forget ‘Wickard v. Filburn’, O’Care, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. and a plethora of other ‘pretty clear vis a vie Constitution’ rulings. On the flip you had those like A. Jackson and, to some extent Zero....”made the ruling, let them enforce it” mantra.

IOW, we are a L-O-N-G way away from where we started, and I wouldn’t trust govt, let alone a lawyer/judge, as far as I could throw Mt. Rushmore.

[IronJack]

So how does a court rule in direct opposition to an existing precedent? Yes, I know Brown overrode Plessey, but those rulings were some 70 years apart. The speech described in this article doesn't even pass a Brandenburg "imminent danger" test.

If "Piss Christ" and homosexual parades are protected under free speech arguments, then there is no way a court could consistently rule that conservative speech -- even racist, nativist, or homo-hating speech -- is not.