Rest in power to Charles Evers! In addition to being radical voice for racial justice, Evers was the central figure in probably the most important case (even more than Brandenburg) about protecting incendiary political speech and rhetoric -- NAACP v. Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982). https://twitter.com/AP/status/1286080596708667399

Claiborne involved a challenge by white merchants to the NAACP’s boycott of white-owned stores, and a related campaign for integration and racial equality which (and this might be my all time fav line from SCOTUS) “included elements of criminality and elements of majesty.”

Along with the NAACP, the merchants sued Charles Evers individually for his leadership role in planning for and supporting the boycott, and for several heated public speeches.

At the meeting where the NAACP initially voted to initiated the boycott, “Evers told his audience that they would be watched and that blacks who traded with white merchants would be answerable to him.”

Evers told his audience of several hundred “that any ‘uncle toms' who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people." During a meeting and march held in response to a white police officer killing a black resident, “Evers stated that boycott violators ...

would be ‘disciplined’ by their own people and warned that the *Sheriff could not sleep with boycott violators at night.*”

Two days later, speaking to several hundred community members, Evers told his audience “If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're gonna break your damn neck.” One form of promised discipline involved “store watchers” from the black community, who ...

identified boycott violators and read their names at public NAACP meetings, and published the same in a newspaper entitled “Black Times.” Those whose names were published “were branded as traitors to the black cause, called demeaning names, and socially ostracized.”

Identified boycott violators were subject to repercussions beyond social ostracism. Supporters of the boycott fired gunshots into three separate boycott violators’ homes. Supporters physically beat two other boycott violators. They robbed another.

They threw a brick through the windshield of a boycott violator’s car. They slashed another’s tires. The leader of the NAACP-organized “store watchers” was involved in several of the acts of violence or property destruction.

The Claiborne County NAACP provided legal representation for those arrested in connection with acts against boycott violators, including three individuals apprehended in one of the shootings.

Even given all this, the Supreme Court said all of this speech was protected. Even the "break your damn necks" line. Despite the explicit directed to his listeners, and the surrounding context of intimidation, the Court found his language protected by the First Amendment.

"Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause....

When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech. To rule otherwise would ignore the profound national commitment that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

Almost unquestionably the most aggressive speech the Court has found to be protected. I've tried to use this in other contexts (animal rights, tenants' rights) and literally had judges tell me "that was the civil rights movement; it was different." But it shouldn't be.

Anyway, enormous gratitude and respect to Charles Evers for his lifelong dedication to civil rights and racial justice, and for being a part of what I think is the most important First Amendment case for radical political activism. /end