It's a figure of speech, referring to the legal principle that in some contexts, taunts and similar are a form of incitement to violence, and are not protected speech.
Pretty much. It seems to have been restricted more in recent years, at least in some regards, but it's still an ongoing principle. Not all speech is legal, in short. Most speech is, but, for a quick overview,
wikipedia is still an easy place to start looking. Inciting imminent lawless action, "fighting words," "true threats," and child pornography are examples of some forms of free speech that are not protected by the First Amendment.
Not just better, *different*.
I'd rate that as half true. Genocide is a form of
ethnic cleansing, so not really different. Ethnic cleansing includes more than just genocide, though, and the rest is generally considered "better," so better would work.
With that said, dudalb's analogy would be greatly enhanced if "Rape" were substituted with something more in line with stabbing a person... if it's being done forcefully as per the normal use of ethnic cleansing. At last check, there are potential peaceful methods to do nearly the same thing, though, like giving substantial and very localized benefits to a group in an area accessible to them and making it uncomfortable, though not necessarily dangerous for them to stay where they were. That wouldn't count as ethnic cleansing officially, though it would generally accomplish much the same thing, albeit slightly slower.
