The shards of insurrection are sharp in the American soil. In fact, they date back to our revolt from the British. But today they are rooted in someone’s provoking words, someone’s incitement — implicit or explicit — meant to stir the pot to boiling, foment violence and intimidate public officials.

“A little rebellion now and then is a good thing,” Thomas Jefferson infamously wrote in 1787. But I’m wondering what he would say today. Angrily talking back is one thing; kicking someone in the ribs is another.

The federal judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s election subversion case in Washington, D.C., needed police at her home because her family was threatened. The judge overseeing Trump’s New York civil damages lawsuit — which might cost him $350 million — received a similar threat on the day of closing arguments.

Colorado’s Supreme Court judges, who agreed that Trump should be kept off the state primary ballot, all have received threats and the FBI is investigating. Ditto members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which ruled to uphold Joe Biden’s presidential victory.

Declared Attorney General Merrick Garland, “This is just a small snapshot of a larger trend that has included threats of violence against those who administer elections, report the news, represent their constituents and keep our communities safe.”

As the January snows cover much of America, a sharp and ominous political chill blankets the nation. The presidential election beckons nine months from now, but the big question still looms: Should the speech of the person who incites the violence of others be protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

In theory, the answer is no. Threatening national security is not protected; publishing sexually explicit and obscene material is not protected; and lighting the flames of violence with........

© The Leader