The constitutional guarantee of free speech does not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

According to Byers, when is the restriction on advocacy of the use of force or law violation permissible?

A) Always
B) When it is likely to incite imminent lawless action
C) When it is directed towards a specific person
D) When it is a general statement

Restrictions on advocacy of the use of force or law violation are permissible when the speech is intended to incite and is likely to produce imminent lawless action, as established by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Explanation:

According to Byers and the principles established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the restriction on advocacy of the use of force or law violation is permissible when such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. This means that the First Amendment protects the advocacy of force or law violation in general. However, when speech crosses into the territory of directly inciting immediate lawless behavior or violence, it falls outside the protective scope of the First Amendment.