Winslow is at a protest when he faces an opposing protest. Winslow yells, "Don't let those bloody, criminal, un$-$American jerks step on your rights, no matter what! We stay; they leave!" The police try to make Winslow's group back up$.$ Winslow's group of protesters charges the other group and the police. Unfortunately, Winslow's group injures three people, including a police officer. Winslow is indicted for inciting a riot. Winslow argues that he was exercising his right to free speech. Two of the state's witnesses, who were members of Winslow's group, testified that they would not have participated in the riot without Winslow's call to action.Concerning this case against Winslow, here is the most likely result:vyerceerencesandources The jury will return a verdict of guilty because Winslow's speech is obscene. The jury will return a verdict of not guilty, because the right to protest, especially if it is about matters of "politics," is nearly absolute$.$ The jury will return a verdict of guilty, because Winslow's language was defamatory. The jury could return a verdict of guilty, decide that Winslow is not guilty, or simply be unable to reach a verdict; the First Amendment's free speech provision does not protect all speech, but $-$ on the other hand $-$ even strong language does not necessarily mean that Winslow is responsible for how individuals react to his speech. The jury will return a verdict of not guilty, because, even if Winslow's speech was hateful and inspired his followers to act violently, Winslow has the right to free speech as long as he $($Winslow$)$ himself did not personally take part in acts of violence.