from the Chicago 7 trial concerning the 68 Demo Convention protest march on one side and called Riot on the other. I would be interested in your views of that trial (not the Judge, he was a clown) but the arguments presented on both sides.
The incitement to violence must be strictly defined. If for example a 3rd party not a part of the original conversation, speech etc commits an act of violence based on what the 1st and second party were having discourse upon, are the first 2 parties liable? If of course one of the two discoursers commit violence the other party is liable under the conspiracy and accomplice laws already on the books. I like the way it is currently defined and would not consider too much of a change without at least 8 months or so of study.
thanx,
bill