Through some research, Gunner is actively breaking free speech on the constitute that his tweet had fighting words.
By using "rise up", Gunner could be inciting a breach of peace by calling for violence and harm towards the people he mentioned. As these fighting words break the Constitution, the argument of "free speech" that I've seen people use is false.
AKA, fuck Gunner.
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[36] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[37] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".
By using "rise up", Gunner could be inciting a breach of peace by calling for violence and harm towards the people he mentioned. As these fighting words break the Constitution, the argument of "free speech" that I've seen people use is false.
AKA, fuck Gunner.