The transmogrification of the First Amendment

I don't know how I came upon this article, but I find the argument in it repugnant. Basically it argues that since the "the media made me do it" defense is not accepted, nobody who inculcates and incites violence should be held accountable. Only those who listen and obey are responsible. I think it's a matter of strict liability. If you advocate killing cops, or blowing up airliners, or assassinating other people, and other impressionable people follow your advice. You are a conspirator. The Clear and Present Danger rule argued against in the article is a limitation on responsibility for incitement, in that it says that the language or incitement or inducement or whatever must be such that it creates a clear and present danger that its urging will be followed before it can be prosecuted. At least that's what I think it means. So if you just rail against the infidels, invoke jihad as a religious duty and extoll suicide bombers as martyrs, but don't get more specific, you're safe.

Apparently even that is not lenient enough for the authors.