But then we are back to the “intended and likely to cause imminent lawless action” formula specified in Brandenburg, right?
But Brandenburg’s speech was an advocacy of genocide against blacks paired with a wider call for ethnic cleansing and he was addressing KKK members. The thing is the court declined to draw a line between what Brandenburg did and what the defendants in Yates were alleged to do (advocate for working class revolt against the elites).
Clearly if we had a responsible government we might say that the history of domestic terrorism that the KKK represents cannot be condoned and solely because of their violent history at home, that we hold them to a different standard. But the courts opted not to trust the elected bodies with that sort of line.