Hasan Piker can often seem to be a caricature of bad faith. That does not mean his speech is unprotected incitement. The two important legal questions in the Florida lawsuit by Larry Klayman against Hasan Piker are (1) will this lawsuit get to a jury and (2) what will a jury do if this case is not dismissed on First Amendment grounds. Klayman, the plaintiff, is also a controversial figure known, among other things, for his litigiousness and ethics violations.

In August of 2026, Piker stated to a large audience, “If Jews in America keep putting this idea out there that they are singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone is going to come around and take action, not against the state of Israel, mind you, but against American Jews.”  According to the complaint, this comment was not a “stray remark,” but capped off a years-long practice of hatred and calls to action against Jews and Zionists (supporters and inhabitants of the state of Israel). The allegations are laid out in the complaint, as is the uptick in antisemitic assaults and murders in the United States. Klayman, a member of groups targeted by Piker’s comments, is suing Piker for reckless endangerment, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, with compensatory and actual damages in excess of $150,000,000.

I make no excuses for Hasan Piker’s content. He has praised China’s former leader Mao Zedong, who is widely considered responsible for over 40 million deaths due to executions, forced famine, and purges of his political enemies.  Piker has stated that his favorite flag is the flag of Hezbollah, an Iran-backed, Hamas-supporting terrorist organization.  Piker targets those who disagree with him, including a Vietnamese refugee who fled communism, with vulgar, demeaning, sexist language.  Piker has said “I wipe my ass with the Constitution.”  I imagine Piker will cite this document, which protects all of us, in trying to dismiss Klayman’s lawsuit on First Amendment grounds.

The fate of Larry Klayman’s lawsuit against Piker is not determined by whether Hasan Piker’s ideas are wrong, bad, or even harmful. (It is also not determined by what people think of Larry Klayman or his views).  Freedom is not about the collective; it is about the individual.

The law cannot silence ideas simply for being dangerous, nor can it attach civil penalties that chill speech.  Harmful speech is protected, out of a distrust for our government having the power to decide which ideas are acceptable in a free society.  Speech must fit into an unprotected category for civil lawsuits to pass First Amendment scrutiny. For speech to be unprotected incitement under the Supreme Court’s articulation in Brandenburg v. Ohio, it has to be directed at and reasonably likely to cause imminent lawless action.

In Brandenburg, a conviction against a member of the Ku Klux Klan’s speech was overturned because the Ohio statute punishing Brandenburg’s speech did not distinguish between incitement and “mere advocacy.”  The KKK had been speaking at rallies and producing films telling Black people to go back to Africa and Jews to go back to Israel, with some KKK members holding weapons.  In addition, Brandenburg said the following: 

“The Klan has more members in the State of Ohio than does any other organization. We’re not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.”

Brandenburg’s statement is, in structure and in some ways in content, similar to Piker’s.  If things keep going the way they are, someone might harm this group of people.  The Brandenburg Court did not directly address whether the statement should be deemed unprotected incitement, but Brandenburg’s conviction was overturned because the Ohio criminal statute was not narrowly confined to speech that rose to the level of incitement.  But Brandenburg’s statements, racist, terrible, and dangerous as they were, likely fall on the advocacy side of the line.

In some cases, courts have determined that a reasonable jury could conclude that speech rises to the level of unprotected incitement.   Several factions of the KKK have successfully been sued for incitement. In addition, the leaders of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville were liable for $26 million for engaging in civil conspiracy to commit violence. Speech that is directed at and reasonably likely to cause imminent violence will be deemed unprotected incitement.

There is a good chance that the Florida court will hold that Piker’s speech is not unprotected incitement. The lawsuit will then be dismissed. Piker’s comments may be directed at getting people to harm Jews or make them afraid to express their opinions – it’s unclear why he would say them otherwise.  However, his comments imply more of a vague threat than an imminent call to harm.  The standard for incitement is purposely high to allow a wide range of contested views into the marketplace of ideas. We only punish speech when it is imminently connected to criminal action.

Perhaps the court would hold reasonable jurors can differ on whether Piker’s comments rise to the level of incitement.  Then, a judge would send Klayman’s claim to a jury – in that case, Piker’s motives and the likelihood of harm coming to Jews, Israelis, or Zionists based on his comments and conduct would both be considered as a matter of fact by the jury. 

The irony is that Piker, known for espousing inflammatory views using noxious rhetoric, creates a world where people who espouse views he disagrees with are afraid to speak freely.  And now Piker, known for praising dictators and organizations that punish, kill, and torture those who do not echo their narrative, will be invoking free speech principles to save himself a lot of money.  The Constitution that he has decried has value, including protecting those who myopically reject its freedoms and structure.