Can a defendant be found guilty of aiding and abetting a civil offence?

Thum , 749 F.3d at 114849 (quoting United States v. Shorty , 741 F.3d 961, 96970 (9th Cir.2013) ). The first obvious difference is that aiding and abetting requires the commission of a crime by another, but Subsection (iv) applies to both criminal and civil violations of the immigration laws. The government asserts that the civil/criminal distinction should not matter in the First Amendment context, but points to no case where a defendant was convicted for aiding and abetting a civil offense. We are not aware of any case that upholds a statute restricting such speech. Therefore, even if certain speech would constitute aiding and abetting when directed toward the commission of a crime, it would be constitutionally protected when aimed at inducing a civil violation of law. And because unauthorized presence in the country is a civil violation rather than a crime, Subsection (iv) reaches beyond speech integral to a crime.