I was reading about the U.S. Supreme Court cases Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio, and I came upon two different legal standards for whether a particular act of speech was banned hate speech- whether it posed a "clear and present danger" of bringing about lawless action in the former, or whether it was "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action".
I recognize that this is an important distinction as far as that the second is a distinctly more restrictive test for determining what is and what is not banned hate speech. However, I have not come up with any concrete example of speech that would be banned under the first test but acceptable under the second. Brandenburg's undeniably bigoted and vile speech litigated in Brandenburg actually seems to me acceptable under Schenck, as it seems to me less aimed at incitement and more just at rhetoric, but I might be wrong there- I've never seen the whole speech.
Any appropriate example of such speech banned under the Schenck test but acceptable under the Brandenburg test (or refutation of my refutation of a potential Brandenburg example) would be greatly appreciated!