“If （a speech） doesn’t call for violence, it doesn’t fall outside the First Amendment, because it’s not intended and likely to lead to imminent lawless action. It may be morally reprehensible, but, just like hate speech, it’s protected." 

"A speech is only unprotected when it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”  Imminent is the key word here."

"Particular examples of hateful speech may satisfy the established tests for the true-threats or incitement exceptions, but they’re not unprotected just because they’re hateful."

“Over the past generation the Court has issued a series of unanimous or near-unanimous decisions affirming that hateful and offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment.”

基于以上文献，飞星的“祝贺美国疫情。。。。世界第一”言论不应会（事实证明不会）导致 “imminent lawless action”，所以飞星的言论受美国宪法保护。飞星无罪。

“因果报应，死了活该”亦应是受宪法保护言论。

对美国小孩儿要杀光chinese,零教授的“强烈谴责”似乎有点滑稽。不过倒是应该问问在那孩子小小的心里如何会有那么暴力血腥的想法捏。