Sorry, Paul, if someone calls you a morally bankrupt scamming loser -- that would be an ad hominem attack.
No, it wouldn't. If somebody said, "You should disregard all of Paul Hansmeier's arguments because he's a lawyer" or even "You should disregard all of Paul Hansmeier's argument because he has (insert color here) eyes," those would be ad hominem attacks. Which is to say, those would be arguments that make the ad hominem fallacy of invalidating his arguments based on an irrelevant facts.
Calling Paul Hansmeier a morally bankrupt scamming loser is merely a(n apt) personal attack aimed at him and not an example of argumentum ad hominem.
[S]peech can only be prohibited as incitement when it satisfies the Brandenburg test ó when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." That's an outgrowth of the famous "clear and present danger" test.
horse with no name, above, expressed a prayer that disgruntled artists and producers would beat you up. This is a rhetorical flourish, and seems unlikely to be intended to actually incite a group of artists and producers to "beat you to a bloody pulp," and is thus not actionable incitement. Read Ken's article for a more thorough examination of a line similar to this.
In such a fantastic post, I wanted to correct you on a small matter of free speech. Horse's speech was protected, as idiotic as it was. I wouldn't have it any other way.