That's a fine objection to his proposal (though perhaps better with examples of information protected by the 1st that you want Twitter to ban).
But I don't think it's a fair criticism of his article. I clearly understood from his writing that the "Incitement" exception only covers information intended to cause violence in the near future.
I don't know if he's familiar with the precise legal language, but even if he is, it wouldn't be appropriate to use it in this article for laypeople. He's using common English.
No, he's not. He's obviously not. He's listing the specific notable exceptions to the First Amendment's bans on prior restraint. He goes out of his way to attempt to depict the specific legal language.
But I don't think it's a fair criticism of his article. I clearly understood from his writing that the "Incitement" exception only covers information intended to cause violence in the near future.
I don't know if he's familiar with the precise legal language, but even if he is, it wouldn't be appropriate to use it in this article for laypeople. He's using common English.