The answer is likely no.

1. This speech is likely not going to be seen as intended and likely to produce imminent unlawful conduct; at most, even if it is intended to get kids to copy the protagonist’s behavior, “at worst, it [would] amount[] to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” That is not enough to qualify as punishable incitement, see Hess v. Indiana (1973) and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

AD

AD

And the analysis would probably not be changed by the target audience being minors (again, if the speech is intended to get kids to copy the protagonist’s behavior): The violent video game case, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n (2011), seems to take the view that speech aimed at minors — at least outside the historically exceptional area of sexually themed speech — is generally as protected as speech aimed at adults. That minors are the audience might sometimes affect how the “likelihood” prong of the incitement test is applied (for instance, if some speech is unlikely to influence adults but more likely to influence impressionable minors). But it probably wouldn’t just remove the “imminence” requirement, which is what would be required to have this ad qualify under the Brandenburg/Hess incitement test.

2. Nor is there likely to be any claim on a theory that this ad negligently promoted “copycat” activity, even if someone emulates the protagonist’s behavior and someone is injured as a result. There have been several lawsuits over the past few decades claiming that some TV program or movie led some viewers — including child viewers — to copy what was being done, and those lawsuits have all been thrown out (whether on First Amendment grounds or on tort law grounds).