@dixiede @Oblivia

> they wouldn't be protected under "free *speech*" as they are not speech

Written words are not "speech" if you're going to be overly narrow about the term. Speech itself is symbolic communication; images are anotehr form.

> Songs can currently be banned in the US if they incite violence.

This is because there's a distinction between communicating opinions and communicating directives. (If you want to read up on this, H.P. Grice and John Searle wrote about this extensively.) That's what I was getting at with the difference between a random person saying someone is guilty and a jury saying someone is guilty. (Or, if you like, the difference between saying "I like steaks" and "Make me a steak".) There's a distinction--an important one--between an action carried out by means of speaking, and speech intended to convey information.