Final answer:
Inciting to riot involves urging or instigating others to engage in violent or disorderly conduct that leads to direct and immediate unlawful action, which is not protected by the First Amendment according to Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Step-by-step explanation:
Does inciting to riot involve any person's endeavor to incite or procure any other person(s) to create or participate in a riot? This question touches on the legal definition of incitement and its relation to riots. According to the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the mere advocacy of the use of force or the violation of the law is protected by the First Amendment. However, it is only when such advocacy incites others to take direct and immediate unlawful action that it falls outside constitutional protection. The concept of incitement in the context of riots involves a person encouraging, urging, or instigating others to engage in violence or disorderly conduct that poses a clear and present danger or results in an immediate threat to public safety or order.
Historical events where incitement might have been questioned include the labor rally in Chicago, mentioned in the question's background information. Here, despite the initial peaceful purpose of the event, the tension escalated, resulting in violence after the police intervened. However, the case also details that the defining factor is the existence of direct and immediate unlawful action resulting from the incitement. Thus, there's a distinguished line between protected speech and advocacy for action that is likely to incite an illegal act.