When does free speech become unprotected speech?

CNN: Experts: Angry rhetoric protected, but can be disturbing

This is a pretty important topic that I feel has come up a lot in many of my classes this semester.  One of the most important mainstays in human rights dialogue (and just about the only type of human right that the US acknowledges) is that of free speech.  In the US, free speech is protected under the First Amendment (a refresher for those of you whose last American history class was too long ago):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So, now that we're all caught up, what does this mean for those Tea Partiers?  It means there's a division between total freedom of speech and dangerous speech, inciting violence.  The most popular anecdote of this comes from Schenck v. United States (1919), from which we get the phrase about shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.1  This was the landmark Supreme Court case that delineated limitations to freedom of speech.  My reading of this (which seems to be the consensus) is that free speech is protected only as long as it does not cause or incite to cause physical harm to another person, or as long as it does not infringe upon another person's rights, whether it is free speech or some other right (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used the term 'clear and present danger', which I feel my definition fits.  Also, Brandenburg v. Ohio, clarifies that speech must be directed to incite/likely to incite "imminent lawless action").2

Now, Back to the Tea Party.  When your free speech involves sending death threats to Senators/Representatives, it is no longer free speech.  It is dangerous speech, and don't whine that you have a constitutional right to it- according to the Supreme Court, you don't.  Also, for all their dissing of liberal protesters during the last administration, there wasn't nearly as much violence (read: I don't remember any) as what these Tea Partiers are bringing.  Tea Party, if you didn't have your heads shoved so far up your asses, you could learn something that is seen throughout history: protesters and those trying to reform/revolt are usually much more successful when they don't use violence.  If you stopped vandalizing offices and waving guns around (and also get a more legitimate party goddess than Sarah Palin), people might actually take you seriously.  Granted, they'll probably still think you're dead wrong, but at least you might get some respect.  And isn't that what we all want?

P.S. Oh boy, I think this is my favorite quote out of the whole article: "Those committing violent acts against congressmen no more represent the Tea Party than suicide bombers represent Islam, she said."  Carol Swain, the professor this is attributed to, also said that it was an attempt to "draw spurious links between the Tea Party and radical elements of the right."  Can someone say 'irony'?  Those idiots are always the ones who believe that Islam is all suicide bombers and radical jihad.  Once again, spurious links! 

_______________________________________
1 Source.  Yeah, I'm citing Wikipedia.  Sue me.
2 Wikipedia again.  Sorry.  Although I must comment that I am glad this case overturned Schenck v. United States, as I always thought that it was a bullshit ruling, prosecuting someone for war protesting.  But that's a rant for another time.