Not even in America would you get away with what he said.
Lies again.
The governing rule: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
The First Amendment allows the government to punish advocacy of violence only if all three are true:
1. Intent – The speaker intends to incite or produce lawless action
2. Imminence – The lawless action is imminent (about to happen, not abstract or someday)
3. Likelihood – The speech is likely to actually cause that imminent lawless action
This is often summarized as “imminent lawless action”, not just “violence” in the abstract.
Lies again.
The governing rule: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
The First Amendment allows the government to punish advocacy of violence only if all three are true: 1. Intent – The speaker intends to incite or produce lawless action 2. Imminence – The lawless action is imminent (about to happen, not abstract or someday) 3. Likelihood – The speech is likely to actually cause that imminent lawless action
This is often summarized as “imminent lawless action”, not just “violence” in the abstract.
All of those things apply to what he said.