[Locke1689]

To a certain extent I do feel that it crosse a line in that it makes speech itself criminal. All US speech laws (except for obscenity, but I don't agree that obscenity should be illegal) deal with an inseparable conjunction of speech and action/effect. "Fighting words" and "incitement to riot" both cause an immediate act of physical harm. Defamation requires a demonstration of harm and even then is very plaintiff-unfriendly.

In the US you can never be jailed just for speech, you must be jailed for speech in conjunction with physical harm or targeted harassment.

[kls]

Yes in the US, the legal system has in the past been innocent until proven guilty, this thinking has at least in spirit extended to innocent of a crime, until action has taken place, this has changed slowly over the years the first to my knowledge was conspiracy to commit murder (in the 1870's IIRC), then others followed like general conspiracy and solicitation etc. But for the most part up until the recent past (1970's on) minor issues required action before you where guilty of a crime. Public speech related offenses are still viewed in the same light, saying we should tear this place down was not inciting a riot until it incited a riot at which point the act of saying it became a criminal offense. So criminalization was retroactively applied to the speech after it created criminal action.