Free speech or not, that is the question

[Bulldog Bats]

I think Farm Boy is right here (see, I can be reasonsable). If the "investigation" goes beyond that, it can be a problem.

 

[Evie]

There are indeed limits not to cross in the investigation. An interview in itself doesn't cross those, but there are ways it could go too far. Sleep deprivation, repeatedly asking the same questions, the usual sort of harassment-style interrogation used by police is almost certainly off-limit. OTOH, just a polite meeting with questions asked, not very different from what you'd get at a job interview or any other type of background check, should be just fine.

I didn't see any evidence in the article (biased as it is) that lines were crossed here

 

[JollyRoger]

If he wanted enhanced free speech rights, he should have incorporated.

 

[gay_Aleks]

You're right, and it's not! Incitement can very well be criminal. Is anyone arguing that incitement should be legal, or are we futzing about whether or not the speech in question actually was incitement?

He can exercise his freedom of speech by answering the interview's questions, which presumably are something of the kind of:

"Have you ever, under any circumstances, wanted you or someone else, to bring an untimely end in any way, and we cite "hang and murder"?"

 

[Farm Boy]

He could, presumably, also exercise that freedom by declining to answer those questions. Which may or may not be in his best interest regardless of which way a truthful answer would take him. Assuming he has the resources available, I would assume legal representation is generally the wisest course of action for both the innocent and not so innocent.