The First Amendment.....

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.

There is no mistake that the founders added this amendment "first" to the Constitution. It is absolutely essential that Citizens have the ability to express how they feel about their Government. To that end the "First Amendment" prohibits the Government from stifling reasonable and open debate.

However the abuse of such freedom could lead to unintended consequences. Immediately after the election there have been a lot of instances where violence has been threatened against President-elect Obama and/or Democratic Members of Congress:

Such as:

The U.S. Secret Service is being asked to review a sign a Bonner County landowner put up which suggests a "free public hanging" of President-elect Barack Obama and several other political figures.

or:

Madison County, Idaho.......elementary school children allegedly started chanting "assassinate Obama" on the school bus.

or this gem:

Obama, he's a piece of shit and I told him to suck on one of my machine guns...

These people have wrapped themselves in the protection of the First Amendment mistakenly. Although Free Speech is protected, threatening or violent speech is not. I'll cite Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Schenck v. United States in 1919


Clearly the advocation of harm to someone or the inciting thereof is not protected speech. I am confident the authorities will give these incidents the attention they deserve.