Whether the First Amendment protects speech amid violence left deliberately unchecked by local government

Whether the First Amendment protects speech amid violence left deliberately unchecked by the local government because such violence serves as useful pretext to suppress speech the local authorities hate? Whether this Court can ignore the extraordinary case of a local government which temporarily abdicates its monopoly on violence to ensure anarchic conditions enabling it to dishonor the First Amendment? Whether the use of some defensive violence by protestors overwhelmed by government favored counter -protestors forfeits any First Amendment claim by any persons associated with the protestors? Whether police officers who deliberately abdicate their responsibility to maintain order — and in fact take additional steps to foment more violence— are entitled to qualified immunity? Whether a municipality escapes Monell liability where the final policy maker watches his police force enhance violent conditions by standing down in the face of known criminal anarchists?