I stan amendment #1.
akkshually, Debs was jailed under the Sedition Act of 1918 (Which has been ruled constitutional in the two or so challenges since 1918).
there are only two exceptions to the 1st amendment. first is criticizing the government's decision to go to war during times of war. the second is speech which is intended to incite violence.
you could argue trump was guilty of the second, but the problem is the burden of proof is much higher. you have to prove the guy intended it; this means you either have to read his mind or get someone within his inner circle to testify against him. neither is likely to happen.
but for the sake of getting to the point of where you're coming from; I heard this interesting take on dialectical thinking recently. the take goes "there are many dimensions to a question/take, one is on a yes/no spectrum, the other is in a spectrum of rightness"
since you're on this forum, you've probably got some radical views, yet youre phrasing this question in liberal terms(staning the 1st ammendment).
on a yes/no spectrum, I suppose you're correct. on the question of rightness, I'm not so sure. I think our laws are generally implemented and enforced to protect the interests of the ruling class.
Today's laws are enforced on behalf of our bourgeois overlords. I think we'd both agree that we must overthrow this bourgeois government, and replace it with one which will rule on behalf of the proletariat.
Yes, I'm saying that it shouldn't be a crime to give a speech that some could construe as inciting.
Eugene Debbs also got thrown in prison lol. The difference is that Trump won't.