From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net>
   >With links:
   >[1]https://www.justsecurity.org/40672/constitutional-rubicon-assange-p
   rosecution/
   >
   > Elizabeth Goitein co-directs the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty
   > and National Security Program. Before joining the Brennan Center, Ms.
   > Goitein served as counsel to Sen. Russ Feingold and as a trial
   > attorney in the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division of the
   > Department of Justice.
   From that article:
       "And if they knowingly print information that presents a “clear and
   present danger” to public safety—the equivalent of incitement, or of
   yelling “fire” in a crowded theater—they could [2]presumably be
   prosecuted (although no such prosecution has ever taken place)."
   [end of quote]
   No, the "clear and present danger" test
   [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger   , to the
   extent it had any validity at all,  was overturned in 1969 by
   Brandenburg v. Ohio.
   [4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
   "The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that
   government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or
   law violation. The majority opinion was [5]per curiam (issued from the
   Court as an institution rather than as authored and signed by an
   individual justice). The earlier draft had originally been prepared by
   Justice [6]Abe Fortas before he was forced to resign in the midst of an
   ethics scandal, and would have included a modified version of
   the [7]clear and present danger test. In finalizing the draft, Justice
   Brennan eliminated all references to it, substituting instead the
   "imminent lawless action" language.^[8][10] Justices Black and Douglas
   concurred separately."
   As stated in the
   [9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger
      "Antiwar protests during World War I gave rise to several important
   free speech cases related to sedition and inciting violence. In the
   1919 case [10]Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court held that an
   antiwar activist did not have a First Amendment right to
   advocate [11]draft resistance.^[12][3]^[13][4] In his majority
   opinion, [14]Justice Holmes introduced the clear and present danger
   test, which would become an important concept in First Amendment law;
   but the Schenck decision did not formally adopt the
   test.^[15][3] Holmes later wrote that he intended the clear and present
   danger test to refine, not replace, the bad tendency
   test.^[16][5]^[17][6] Although sometimes mentioned in subsequent
   rulings, the clear and present danger test was never endorsed by the
   Supreme Court as a test to be used by lower courts when evaluating the
   constitutionality of legislation that regulated speech.
                 Jim Bell

References

   1. https://www.justsecurity.org/40672/constitutional-rubicon-assange-prosecution/
   2. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2959&context=journal_articles
   3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger
   4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
   5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_curiam
   6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Fortas
   7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger
   8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#cite_note-10
   9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger
  10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_resistance
  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger#cite_note-Killian.2C_p_1093-3
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger#cite_note-4
  14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.
  15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger#cite_note-Killian.2C_p_1093-3
  16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger#cite_note-Dunlap-5
  17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger#cite_note-6