From what I've read--I claim no expertise--it seems the threshold for determining that certain demonstrations, in advance, will lead to "
imminent lawless action" is quite hard to do, which is why many demonstrations are often allowed to go ahead. In the case of C'ville, the judges decision was pretty clear (falling on side of the Plaintiff-@$sshole, and the ACLU) that the town did not convincingly argue that that violence would occur, and the Plaintiff also indicated that it would be a safe demonstration, as noted in the ACLU letter I posted a few pages ago (...and how many hate groups, which aren't illegal, are going to say in advance that they are going to cause violence?).
It appeared that the town was trying to ban the rally before it occurred more based on content of speech (the hateful ideas), but didn't make a good case that safety was the major issue. From what I gather, municipalities can limit the time, place, and manner, of speeches--as in moving a demonstration to another area--but C'ville just didn't convince the judge that safety, as opposed to content, was the motivation.
So it seems that it is very difficult to
anticipate if someone's free-speech demonstration will result in violence. But if it does, then obviously the government can prosecute people for criminal acts, but they can't pre-emptively limit someone's free-speech without making a hell of a good case, so it seems. I wonder, now though, how these events in C'ville will change how courts rule on free-speech, and especially how cities argue the potential for imminent lawless action (see
Hess v. Indiana), and/or how citizens are retroactively prosecuted if it does lead to violence. I wish there was some lawyers on here to disentangle these issues.
