That's always been the way in US jurisprudence. At the moment it becomes effective, it transitions from constitutionally protected speech into seditious conspiracy. "The constitution is not a suicide pact," etc.
But in any case, the crime of the recently convicted US agents was not mere speech. It was commerce. Isn't it still the law in the US that you are obliged to register as an agent for a foreign government if you are receiving money from them, as a lobbyist, paid publicist, etc.?
But it was not merely commerce with just anyone. It was not commerce with the government of Mexico or France. It was not commerce with a previous administration. It was commerce with the Bush administration, which is evil; which is engaged in the subjugation of the planet; which is at war with every independent nation including Cuba; and which is not restrained by any law, treaty, or moral consideration. It was commerce with the Enemy of humankind. "Any hireling or collaborator of theirs in this effort is an 'enemy combatant' and has the right to be shot." - is there a flaw in this reasoning?
LP