Actually. No. Brandenburg isn’t met here. “Candace Owens' X post, stating "Do not join or remain in the United States Military. Trump has betrayed America and expects you to die for Israel. There is no honor in being led by dishonorable men to your death," does not constitute a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2387. The statute criminalizes, with intent to impair the loyalty, morale, or discipline of U.S. military forces, advising, counseling, or urging "insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States." While the post urges non-participation, including by current members ("remain"), it is general political criticism of foreign policy and leadership, not targeted counseling to specific individuals or calls for immediate action. Supreme Court precedent in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), holds that advocacy of law violation is protected by the First Amendment unless "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and... likely to incite or produce such action." The post lacks imminence or likelihood of producing desertion or refusal; it is abstract advocacy amid public debate on U.S.-Iran tensions. In United States v. Spock, 416 F.2d 165 (1st Cir. 1969), the court reversed convictions for conspiring to counsel draft evasion, requiring strict proof of specific intent to illegal aims in mixed legal-illegal advocacy, to avoid punishing protected criticism. Evidence of intent must be from unambiguous statements or acts showing adherence to illegality, not mere sympathy or general opposition. The defendants' public "Call to Resist Illegitimate Authority" included advocacy of resistance but was bifarious; convictions failed for lack of such proof for most defendants. Owens' post similarly mixes protected policy critique with general urging, without evidence of specific intent to cause unlawful acts. No post-Brandenburg precedent upholds a § 2387 conviction for comparable civilian public speech. WWII-era cases like Dunne v. United States, 138 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1943), predate modern First Amendment standards and involved direct wartime pamphlet distribution urging insubordination. Recent citations to § 2387 involve military personnel (e.g., Priest v. Secretary of the Navy, 570 F.2d 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1977)) or unrelated contexts, not civilian political posts.”