[like_any_other]

> Unless there’s proof of incitement to violence or a true threat, such expression is protected.

AFAIK the bar is even higher - incitement to violence is allowed, as long as it's not 'imminent': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

[HighGoldstein]

The bar in the US right now seems to be if someone with any authority feels like killing you.

[electrondood]

> Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.

You'd need to say something which directs others to violate the law or commit acts of violence, at a specific time ("imminent"), and your statement must be likely to be effective at causing them to do so.

Protesting, encouraging others to protest, expressing your political beliefs, organizing a protest, etc. are not incitement to violence. Nor is "doxxing" (filming, identifying) a public employee. None of these activities satisfy those criteria.

Remember the "Twitter files" nonsense? I recall they were upset at the government influencing the expression of political views on social media. Not hearing much backlash about this from the same people, because this is what they were claiming, but 100x worse.