Video of a Maine Lawmaker Asking Crowds to ‘Get in the Way’ of ICE Is Going Viral — X Is Split Over Whether It Crosses a Legal Line

A video of a Maine state legislator encouraging people to resist what she described as "unlawful executive orders" has gone viral on X after being shared by @storm1news. With over 508,000 views as of publication, the video has also been criticized by some users, while others have been defending the remarks as protected political speech. The Daily Dot could not confirm the speaker's identity from the video alone.

The legislator can be heard asking a series of questions to the audience and receive affirmative responses after each one. "If you see ICE disappearing people in the streets, will you get in the way?" she asks. "Yes," the audience responds. She continues: "If you are charged with enforcing any part of the President's unlawful executive orders, will you resist?"

Again, the audience answers, "Yes."

The speaker also asks whether attendees would help a neighbor if they needed "a place to hide." She then addressed transgender student athletes in Maine, saying lawmakers were 'trying to scapegoat them' and asked the audience, "Will you show up for them and say that our human rights aren't for sale?"

The Daily Dot could not independently verify the context of the event or the speaker's remarks. Still on X, commenters had differing opinions.

One commenter, using an expletive to describe the legislator, wrote that she was 'inciting others to engage in federal crimes.' The Daily Dot could not independently assess the characterization.

Another argued that those opposing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were disregarding the law, writing, "Go ahead, folks! You'll be apprehended for impeding. They ARE law enforcement." Another claimed opponents of ICE "want [to] take out their own frustrations with their own lives on (...) Republicans."

Not all commenters viewed the speech as illegal. One X user argued that the remarks fell under First Amendment protections, writing, "You call a clear case of 'Freedom of Speech' a crime." The same commenter added that legal questions could arise only if followers committed crimes as a direct result of the speech.

But these legal protections do not extend to speech that meets the high constitutional threshold for criminal incitement established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

The Daily Dot was unable to independently verify the identity of the speaker, the context of the event, or the circumstances described in the video. The details above reflect the account as shared on X by @storm1news. The Daily Dot is not in a position to assess the legality of the remarks depicted.