Thread by @MarinaMedvin

#1A protects all speech, even asshole speech.

Read:
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942)
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972)
Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (1974)

https://twitter.com/StopAntisemites/status/1635655634422054914

A statute must be carefully drawn to punish only unprotected speech and not be susceptible to application to protected expression. In order to pass constitutional muster, words by their very utterance must inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

I do not know this FL statute and I do not know this Sabotitni guy. What I do know is that #1A protects speech and that if a legislature wants to criminalize speech they better be careful about how they word that law.

Here is a sample defense brief on the topic of a criminal statute that is violative of #1A. Start reading at the bottom of page 5.

medvinlaw.com/wp-content/upl…

The particular concerns appear to be defacement related. There are standing defacement laws on the books, presumably, that can be applied. Or those laws can be amended to include additional defacement conduct for private and public property. But defacement is not speech.