Resistance and the First Amendment: What You Can (and Can’t) Say in a Dying Empire

Understanding the legal boundaries of revolutionary writing in the United States

In 1964, a man in a white robe stood in a field in rural Ohio, surrounded by burning crosses and armed men. He gave a speech filled with hate, veiled threats, and calls for action against the government.

The state of Ohio charged him with criminal syndicalism—a law that made it illegal to advocate for political change through violence. He was convicted.

And then something strange happened.

The Supreme Court didn’t just overturn his conviction. It used his case to create one of the most powerful protections for radical speech in U.S. history.

It didn’t matter that he was a Klansman. It didn’t matter that his words were ugly. What mattered was this: his speech didn’t incite imminent violence. It was offensive—but it wasn’t illegal.

And that ruling—Brandenburg v. Ohio—is the reason that you can speak freely today in the United States. It’s the reason you can write about revolution, publish guerrilla theory, criticize the state, and still be protected by the First Amendment.

But protection has limits.

This article is about knowing exactly where those limits are—and how to speak boldly without crossing the legal line. Because in a collapsing world, the difference between free speech and a federal charge might come down to a single sentence.

What the First Amendment Protects

In the United States, the First Amendment offers some of the strongest legal protections for political speech in the world. You have the right to criticize the government, to denounce the system, and to advocate for radical change—even revolutionary change. That means you can say, “This government is illegitimate.” You can publish books and essays about overthrowing the state. You can teach guerrilla theory, analyze revolutionary movements, and share materials like Total Resistance, Mao’s On Guerrilla Warfare, Che Guevara’s Guerrilla Warfare, or Võ Nguyên Giáp’s People’s War, People’s Army. You can argue that collapse is coming, that the state is failing, and that people should organize, prepare, and resist.

You can do all of this because the Supreme Court has made it clear: speech, by itself, is not a crime. Even speech that angers, disturbs, or scares the powerful. But that protection does have limits—and it’s important to know exactly where they are.

The most important boundary in American free speech law was drawn in 1969, in a landmark Supreme Court case: Brandenburg v. Ohio. Clarence Brandenburg, a Klan leader, had been convicted under Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law after he gave a speech vaguely threatening “revengeance” against the government. The Court unanimously overturned his conviction and, in doing so, set the modern standard for protected speech.

That standard, known as the Brandenburg Test, says that speech is protected under the First Amendment unless it meets two very specific criteria: first, it must be intended to incite imminent lawless action; and second, it must be likely to produce such action. Both elements—intent and imminence—must be present.

This matters. It means that saying “This system is corrupt and must be torn down” is protected speech. It means teaching guerrilla warfare history or resistance theory is protected. It means you can express your belief that the collapse of industrial civilization is inevitable, and that resistance is a moral necessity.

What you can’t do is tell someone to commit a crime immediately. You can’t say, “Meet me at the courthouse tomorrow and bring explosives.” You can’t publish specific tactical instructions with the intent that someone use them right away to commit arson or sabotage. You can’t coordinate an attack or encourage a violent act that is both imminent and likely to occur.

In legal terms, the distinction is between advocacy and incitement. Advocacy—no matter how radical—is protected. Incitement, if it crosses the threshold of intent and immediacy, is not.

For resistance writers, teachers, and organizers, this distinction is everything. The First Amendment doesn’t just let you speak freely—it lets you publish, educate, challenge, and resist. But you must know the terrain. Because in a time when collapse is real and resistance is growing, the state will look for reasons to silence you. If your words are sharp, your ideas dangerous, or your message effective, they will be watching. And they may try to twist what you say into something it isn’t.

That’s why understanding the Brandenburg Test isn’t just about staying safe—it’s about staying powerful. It’s about knowing how to speak truth to power without handing power a reason to crush you.

You don’t need to censor yourself. You don’t need to retreat. You just need to write like the law matters—and like your words do too. Because they do. In an age of collapse, speech is not just expression. It’s strategy. And a well-aimed sentence, like a well-placed wrench in the machine, can change everything.

Where You Can Get Into Trouble

A. Incitement to Imminent Violence

• Specific instructions to commit violence soon or at a target can cross the legal line.

B. Instructional Content on Illegal Acts

• Example: step-by-step bomb making, or detailed sabotage guides.

• Historical example: The Anarchist Cookbook—not illegal, but frequently cited in prosecutions.

C. “Material Support” Laws

• Training, advice, or coordination with designated terrorist organizations, even if nonviolent, can be prosecuted.

• These laws are broad and vague—potentially dangerous for internationalist movements.

⚖️ Disclaimer:
This post is not legal advice. It is intended as a strategic and educational overview for writers, organizers, educators, and dissidents navigating the legal landscape of political speech in the United States. For legal guidance on your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney or reach out to organizations such as the National Lawyers Guild or the ACLU.

When the Law Isn’t Enough

It’s one thing to know your rights. It’s another to expect them to protect you when the system feels threatened.

You can quote every Supreme Court case. You can frame your words perfectly. You can stay within the bounds of what the First Amendment technically allows—and still find yourself deplatformed, surveilled, harassed, investigated, or smeared.

Because legal protection is one thing. Political repression is another.

Governments have always criminalized dissent, especially in moments of instability. When the center doesn’t hold, those in power get desperate—and they turn their attention not to solving the crisis, but to silencing those who dare to name it.

If you write about collapse, about resistance, about building power outside the state—you will be seen as a threat. Not because you’ve broken the law, but because you’ve broken the narrative. You’ve pulled back the curtain. You’ve given people tools to see clearly, and act accordingly.

That is enough to get you flagged.

So be prepared.

Be prepared to have your communications monitored.
Be prepared to have posts removed.
Be prepared for shadowbans, false accusations, or “random” audits.
Be prepared to lose platforms, accounts, jobs, or institutional credibility.
Be prepared to be misunderstood—intentionally.

This isn’t paranoia. It’s pattern recognition.

It has happened before. It is happening now. And it will accelerate.

That doesn’t mean you stop. It means you get smarter.

Use encryption. Build networks of trust. Keep backups. Write clearly, but with awareness. Don't say what doesn’t need to be said. Understand that the more powerful your words become, the more the system will want to control them—or erase them.

Final Thoughts: Write Anyway

You’re going to feel the fear. That’s normal. It means you’re paying attention. It means you understand what’s at stake.

But don’t let that fear stop you from speaking truth. Because silence is the system’s favorite outcome. Not because it wins the argument—but because it never has to hear it.

Don’t self-censor so deeply that resistance dies before it begins.
Don’t hollow out your message just to avoid imaginary landmines.
Don’t trade clarity for safety when what we need is both.

Know your rights. Know the lines. Know the terrain. But above all, write anyway.

Write with boldness.
Write with strategy.
Write with the precision of someone who knows they’re being watched—but refuses to be silenced.

Because your words matter.
Because someone is waiting to read them.
Because every revolution has its writers.

You are not alone in this. Others are writing, organizing, training, dreaming alongside you—even if you never meet.

And yes—this world is built to make you feel powerless. But remember: the pen, when wielded with purpose, is still a weapon. It cuts through lies. It wounds propaganda. It builds memory. It names what must be named.

So write.
Write because the old world is falling.
Write because a new one waits to be born.
Write because you must.

And if you do it well—if you speak clearly, defiantly, and with love for what’s still alive—then no matter what happens next, you’ve already begun to win.

APPENDIX: KEY SUPREME COURT CASES ON RADICAL SPEECH

1. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) The Gold Standard for Political Speech Protection

• Ruling: You cannot be punished for advocating force or violence unless your speech is intended and likely to incite imminent illegal action.

• Impact: General calls for revolution or resistance are protected. Immediate calls for violence are not.

2. Yates v. United States (1957) Abstract Advocacy Is Not a Crime

• Ruling: Teaching or advocating revolutionary ideas is protected unless it incites specific actions.

• Impact: Publishing guerrilla theory or radical literature is protected.

3. Noto v. United States (1961) Passive Membership Is Not Criminal

• Ruling: You can’t be prosecuted just for being in a radical group—only for taking active steps to incite violence.

• Impact: Reading, discussing, or joining resistance-oriented communities is legal.

4. Hess v. Indiana (1973) “Later” Isn’t “Imminent”

• Ruling: Saying “We’ll take the streets later” is not incitement because it doesn’t advocate immediate lawbreaking.

• Impact: Vague or delayed language about uprising is still protected.

5. Watts v. United States (1969) Political Hyperbole Is Protected

• Ruling: A statement like “If I’m drafted, the first person I’ll aim at is the president” was ruled not a true threat.

• Impact: Emotional, metaphorical, or symbolic political speech is protected.

6. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) Material Support Laws Reach Far

• Ruling: Providing training or advice to designated terrorist organizations—even for peaceful means—can be prosecuted.

• Impact: Don’t coordinate with foreign groups on the terrorism list. Stick to public, educational content.