The SCOTUS has made pretty clear that all speech is protected unless it falls into one of these categories:
"International diplomacy" isn't among the exceptions, and therefore it's protected.
No, I didn't. I'll walk you through it again.
(a) Manson convinced people to join his murder plan. But he didn't just convince people, he also
(b) Took a concrete step to actualize his plan
When (a) and (b) are both present, that's a conspiracy
The elements of a conspiracy are (a) planning a crime with someone, and (b) taking any step, no matter how minor, to advance the plan.
Both are necessary. Planning a violent revolution without taking any concrete action is just talking shit, which is generally not illegal. Good thing for Lemmy users.
Likewise, inadvertently helping a murderer without having a criminal plan, like Ma and Pa, is also not illegal.
Put the two together, and you've got an illegal conspiracy.
He didn't just convince people. For example, in one of the murders he drove with his accomplices to the crime scene.
Prosecutors can use any concrete action, no matter how minor, to tie him to the murder. Manson's gun was used in the Tate murders, which is more than enough. But even giving the others a place to stay can be enough.
Charles Manson was guilty of murder and conspiracy, which are more than just influencing others. Both require taking some concrete action.
Our interpretation of the First Amendment has undeniably changed a lot over the centuries. The Sedition Act, also in 1798, sent someone to jail for calling the President "not only a repulsive pedant, a gross hypocrite, and an unprincipled oppressor, but...in private life, one of the most egregious fools upon the continent." Such a prosecution would be a non-starter today.
It's sad that the Second Amendment seems to be frozen in time, for now.
Yes, I quoted the Logan Act to point out that it's directly at odds with the First Amendment. A law that bans "influencing" someone will quickly be ruled unconstitutional as soon as anyone tries to enforce it.
There are many anachronistic laws that are still on the books but will be thrown out if anyone tries to enforce them today. For example, in some states homosexuality is technically banned, but those bans are unenforceable and people "flagrantly violate the law" every day.
Key detail:
The question for the justices is that the 6th Circuit and several other appeals courts apply a higher standard when members of a majority group make discrimination claims.
So the SCOTUS won't be deciding whether she was discriminated against, they will be deciding how courts should decide whether she was discriminated against.
"Interfering with the elected will" is not a crime.
If it were, all protests would be illegal.