He claims the First Amendment prohibits incitement. It does, under certain conditions. The Supreme Court ruled speech is prohibited if directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action. Furthermore, the speech must be likely to incite or produce such action. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court overruled a previous ruling on "clear and present danger" and said advocacy of illegal action is not sufficient for restriction, that is unless it meets the imminent and likely criteria.

Direct calls for violence that result in immediate unlawful acts are illegal. For instance, encouraging a person to throw a Molotov cocktail at the police during a street demonstration. Gorka is correct if he is talking about serious threats directed at individuals and groups. I don't think that is what he is talking about.

Expressing support for Hamas and Hezbollah or chanting "from the River to the Sea" does not measure up to incitement under the First Amendment. Gorka believes anti-Israel speech may be defined as illegal incitement. He characterizes antizionist protesters as Iranian and Russian "fellow travelers."