[dashundchen]

No, it's not nonsense. The line has been drawn on once and many times after, by the Supreme court.

When your speech impinges on the safety or rights of another citizen, you are not covered by free speech.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Free speech is not carte blanche to invite violence or call for a genocide. Please watch the recent vice documentary to hear what and how the Charlottesville white supremacists prepared for. It's truly vile and genocidal.

If you want to see a society who has been much more firm holding against racist nonsense, see Germany who has legislated against Nazi symbols and propoganda. Do you see why allowing indimidation and hateful violence run rampant is a bad idea?

[Sacho]

What you're saying is true - freedom of speech is not absolute, and there are well recognized, narrow exceptions to the First Amendment.

That said, Schenck is an awful example of them, considering:

- it does not advance your argument at all - Schenck was an anti-war protester who was trying to distribute flyers. Where's the "impinging on safety or rights of another citizen" there?

- it has been rejected and abandoned as a doctrine, most notably via Brandenburg vs Ohio.

(See https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...)