https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-man-arrested-making-election-related-th... "A Texas man was arrested today in Travis County, Texas, for allegedly sending threatening election-related communications to government officials on Jan. 5, 2021." Chad Stark, 54, of Leander, was arrested this morning in a law enforcement operation carried out by the FBI. He is scheduled to make his initial appearance this afternoon at the federal courthouse in Austin, Texas. "This is the first criminal case brought by the Justice Department’s Election Threats Task Force. Announced by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and launched by Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco in late June 2021, the task force is leading the department’s efforts to address threats of violence against election workers, and to ensure that all election workers — whether elected, appointed or volunteer — are able to do their jobs free from threats and intimidation. The task force engages with the election community and state and local law enforcement to assess allegations and reports of threats against election workers, and investigates and prosecutes these matters where appropriate, in partnership with FBI field offices and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices throughout the country as warranted."[Much nonsense snipped] Apparently, the Feds have already forgotten the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia | | | | Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television... | | | And for the case and syllabus itself: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ "Held: Since the statute, by its words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action, it falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, overruled."

From the Case:   https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/

"Measured by this test, Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained. The Act punishes persons who "advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety" of violence "as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform"; or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing such advocacy; or who "justify" the commission of violent acts "with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism"; or who "voluntarily assemble" with a group formed "to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's bald definition of the crime" Page 395 U. S. 449 in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action. [Footnote 3] | | | | | | | | | | | Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) Speech that supports law-breaking or violence in general is protected by the First Amendment unless it directly ... | | | "Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action. [Footnote 4] Such a statute falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The contrary teaching of Whitney v. California, supra, cannot be supported, and that decision is therefore overruled." | | | | | | | | | | | Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) Speech that supports law-breaking or violence in general is protected by the First Amendment unless it directly ... | | |