On multiple occasions Donald Trump has been seen on video threatening violence and encouraging supporters to engage in violence against dissidents. Not only is this despicable, but it is also criminal. There was a precedent set in the SCOTUS decision: Schenk V. United States, which limits free speech in cases where the speech creates a real and imminent threat.

"Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent." -Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

There is good reason we have these kinds of precedents. When somebody like Donald Trump encourages their supporters to act out in violence and the result of that speech is his supporters actually acting out in violence the criteria set out by the SCOTUS in Brandenburg V. United States is clearly met. In Brandenburg V. United States, the courts ruled that there must be intent to cause violence, likelihood of causing violence and violence must be imminent. In many cases all three of these circumstances have been met at Donald Trump Rallies. He has used speech that had the intent to incite violence, where the likelihood of violence(i.e. a protester that Donald Trump is advocating the use of violence against is currently present), and where violence was imminent, which I think can be satisfied by the fact that Violence did indeed occur subsequent the remarks being made.

For this and many other reasons I would like to see an investigation into the campaign of Donald Trump that takes a closer look at what can be done to curtail the violence that he is both advocating and inciting.