As J Tyler noted the reach of these laws is still nominally limited by Brandenburg v. Ohio (US 1968), which allows proscription only of advocacy of illegal activity that rises to the level of incitement to crimes that are immanent. However ...
[....}
if I were you, I sure as hell would be intimidated, chilled, cowed, and frightened into silence when it comes to idle chatter about political violence. =============================== As usual, Andie's contribution is informed and level-headed.
I'd only add what we all know to be true, however: that these laws only become active when the state perceives what it considers to be a threat to the system, ie. from the mass left through most of the last century, and in the period since 9/11, from cells of Islamist radicals in the growing Muslim communities in the West.
Chat groups like LBO aren't on it's radar screens, except insofar as it routinely conducts broad electronic surveillance. Nor are the student bands of anarchist protesters chucking stones at the cops and the banks and imagining that this constitutes "violent" resistance.
It seems to me a serious crackdown against today's small radical community would hardly justify the public furor and headache it would create for the authorities.
But Andie is still right to remind us that kids shouldn't play with matches.