Defending the president, Rep Steube just cited the Brandenburg v Ohio case of 1969 in which the US Supreme Court held that an Ohio Klan leader’s conviction for advocating for violence was a violation of his Free Speech rights.

2/ This is a legal not moral argument, which may or may not matter in the larger discussion of incitement, but beyond that Steube contrasted what Trump said with Brandenburg, who declared “it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken” vs Jews and Blacks.

3/ The speeches are different in many ways, though. Brandenburg's speech was not followed by immediately and direct action. SCOTUS ruled "speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment unless the speech is likely to incite 'imminent lawless action.'"