[American Infidel]

So, according to this ruling, one's constitutional rights can be violated if is felt that the exercising of those rights by one group or individual can potentially cause another group or individual to be so angry that violence may ensue.

Slippery slope on steroids here. Are we to gather from this ruling that - for example - if enough people react angrily to a certain group of Americans exercising their legal right to vote; those voting rights will be stripped away since the "concern" over the potential violence trumps the constitution?

An extreme example perhaps, but that is the implication here.

[Olog-hai]

Not so extreme.