“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.”

基於以上文獻，飛星的“祝賀美國疫情。。。。世界第一”言論不應會（事實證明不會）導致 “imminent lawless action”，所以飛星的言論受美國憲法保護。飛星無罪。

“因果報應，死了活該”亦應是受憲法保護言論。

對美國小孩兒要殺光chinese,零教授的“強烈譴責”似乎有點滑稽。不過倒是應該問問在那孩子小小的心裡如何會有那麼暴力血腥的想法捏。