re: #203 Simply Sarah

Well, I thought I answered.

He has the right to do it and I’m not trying to take that away from him. It was fantastically stupid and served no positive purpose except in his own mind, if even that, but it was protected speech. He just needs to live with the simple fact that many people will want absolutely nothing to do with him now. Well, more people.

On my part, I’m not sure it was protected speech.

It was done with the specific intent of provoking a violent reaction. This shades into the area of incitement, though it’s not clean due to the separation of time and space.

Incitement of riot is not protected speech, with a workable defense being the speaker did not anticipate or intend the violence. Jones, however, did intend the reaction — he’s admitted to such.

Since I haven’t decided if it’s protected, I’m not certain I have reason to defend his right to make such a speech.